From: 4D Specs ® 30/10/2001 10:28:10
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 476661
Just a reminder:

Science is wrong. It has always been wrong, and it always will be wrong.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.





From: 4D Specs ® 30/10/2001 11:19:03
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 476729
Paul - a conversation I had with my daughter when she was about three (at about 10:30 in the morning)

Daughter: Daddy, every day it's new and surprising.

Father (disgracefully cynical): Oh yes? What's new and surprising today then?

Daughter (with a little smile of triumph) I don't know -


yet.



The message - give it a chance mate!
From: WesleyCrusher ® 30/10/2001 13:26:39
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 476910
Is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics wrong? For that matter, are the other two?
What do you want people to say? "Yes, darling, you're right and we're wrong"? What we know about the Universe and everything in it, we can only describe to the best of our abilities at this point in time. How does that make all of science wrong? The picture is adjusted as we get more information.
If we're doing it wrong, how should we do it right?
This is a pointless debate, you put forward no arguement that convinces me that all of science is wrong. Wait up. Do you mean science is wrong ethically and morally or we're just not getting it right?
:o)
From: Martin B 30/10/2001 13:26:48
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 476911
James has given a canonical example for fuzzy logic: "Person X is tall" has informational content but there is no unambiguous
definition of tall, so it is possible that "Person X is short" can also be (somewhat) true.

Well no, that statement is without meaning unless you define 'person' and 'tall'. It's not 'fuzzy logic' to say "hehd is ttef' - it's just meaningless. No non-binary
logic there.

tall can be defined as "usually exceeding the height of another person". That cannot be given an absolute figure, because it is context-dependent. What is tall amongst one group of people will not be considered tall amongst another group of people. No it does not sense to find the mean height of all people on the planet and define tall and short in that manner.

If you do not wish to believe in the results of fuzzy logic that's fine. But disputing its existence won't get you very far.

gave an example of quantum logic earier, which you didn't answer. "Schrodingers cat is dead" cannot be said to be True or False before the box is opened, because it is Undecided.

I did answer. You didn't answer my answer.

And no, it's not undecided, it's unknown. You can't ask logical questions about the completely unknown. That would be meaningless also.

(Tedious explanation: yes I am aware of the mystical idea of observational probability wave collapse. No, that's *not* different from not knowing if it's raining it Berlin right now (right now)). Not knowing something is not non-binary logic.

You responded, you didn't answer. IIRC you said "explain to me how that's science?". That is not an answer to a direct question.

"Unknown" is very different from undecided. Quantum superposition states (ie undecided) behave very different from collapsed states (ie unknown) with direct, measurable results.

In the two-slit experiment, the question "does the photon pass through the left-hand slit" must be undecided if an interference pattern is observed. It cannot merely be unknown.

From: Robert ® 30/10/2001 15:39:29
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477138
tall can be defined as "usually exceeding the height of another person". That cannot be given an absolute figure, because it is context-dependent. What is tall amongst one group of people will not be considered tall amongst another group of people. No it does not sense to find the mean height of all people on the planet and define tall and short in that manner

But I could consruct a machine (probably using an Artificial Neural Net) that perceives the context and request and outputs a result (one of either "Short", "Tall" and "I don't know, I've never seen one before. I could tell you whether it is short or tall with respect to me if you like") :) And that would all be using classical computation.
From: Dr Paul {:~)} (Avatar) 30/10/2001 15:52:58
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477150
Hi all,

the comparison of Schroedinger's Cat problem to the memory components of a computer is very close. I can not tell whether any particuar Binary nibble in my computer is reading true or false unless I ask of its current value. This means I am undertaking the application of the operator of whether the nibble is true or false. The Cat in the Box is either alive or dead. It is one of two conditions. Opening the box means that you are applying the operation of reading the nature of the cat.

Each is binary in nature, whether a true or false value, no other. Please think of how binary logic works before criticising an anology for such logic

Paul
From: Martin B 30/10/2001 15:54:15
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477152
Hi Robert

As they say, fuzzy logic is a logic of imprecision, it is not itself an imprecise logic.

(Of course just watch your finite-state machine try to accurately represent a transcendental number! :-)

There is some dispute as to whether fuzzy logic can be mapped onto a two-valued logic system. Apparently there are some correspondence principles which, if adopted, do this. However fuzzy logicians argue that these correspondence principles are not necessary.
From: Martin B 30/10/2001 15:56:50
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477155
Hi Paul

The point of the Schrodingers cat paradox is that a superposition state is not the same as "either alive or dead."


From: Chris (Avatar) 30/10/2001 16:05:18
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477162

The Cat in the Box is either alive or dead. It is one of two conditions. Opening the box means that you are applying the operation of reading the nature of the cat.

Whoah Paul - did you mean that?

The point of the Schroedinger thought experiment is that cat is neither or both alive and/or dead before the box is opened. It is not that we just don't know which state the cat is in because we haven't looked, it is that it is actually in a superposition of states because we haven't looked.

From: John Devers ® 30/10/2001 16:15:27
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477180
Chris, I thought you could passivly look with your eyes and it would make no difference the superposition would remain? It is only when you activly look by taking a measurement that the superposition is destroyed?

Otherwise everything we look at would be falling to bits, like we had laser eyes?
From: Chris (Avatar) 30/10/2001 16:21:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477194

"Measure", "Look", "Observe" mean more or less the same thing with regard to superposition (as best I can tell, anyway) and that is "Interact" with the system.

From: John Devers ® 30/10/2001 16:28:29
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477204
So is the two slits experiment on a similar plane as the cat experiment.

Is there a difference between the two types of observation?
From: 4D Specs ® 30/10/2001 16:54:59
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477256
Can someone explain this.

The switch observes the radiation
The hammer observes the switch
The test tube observes the hammer
The poison gas observes the test tube
The cat observes the poison gas

Why is opening the box suposed to change anything?
From: Dr Paul {:~)} (Avatar) 30/10/2001 21:17:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 477656
Hi all,

the Schroedinger's Cat experiment has only two states in which the cat can exist. This is the simplest form of the 'superposition of states' as only two 'unknown' states exist. We can not know of the cats fate until we apply the operation of observing the cat. It is still one choice of two, so a binary logic operation. The experiment was designed for the thought with the likelihood that the radioactive dacay would be of a 50:50 probability over the time course of the thought experiment.

The superposition of states for this is still either the cat is alive or it is dead. Until we observe the cat, so collapsing the wave function into one of two states, we have the state superposition.

Upon opening the box, the logic of the experiment is essentially binary in logic, the cat is either in the dead (true) or not dead (false) state.

Paul
From: 4D Specs ® 31/10/2001 8:48:03
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478437
Dr Paul

Was that an answer to my question? If so, I don't understand. If not, do you have an answer?

The question again was, why don't all the other observations count?
From: Chris (Avatar) 31/10/2001 8:57:05
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478440

Hi 4D
Why is opening the box suposed to change anything?

The Schroedinger experiment is flawed because it is not a quantum experiment. The point of the exercise is to examine the decay of the uranium atom. Schroedinger felt that physicists were too prepared to accept the superposition/observation thing with quantum events because they're on a scale that we don't interact with daily. He tried to give the uranium atom's decay a macroscopic consequence in order to illustrate how weird superposition actually is. You are supposed to accept that the action (the decay) and the consequence (the cat's fate) are simply causally linked without examining the causation, so as to examine instead the act of observation.

The real experiment to consider would just have the atom and a detector. The atom decays, the detector says it has decayed.

From: 4D Specs ® 31/10/2001 8:58:03
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478441
OK, I've been thinking about this and you guys are right, not all of science is wrong. Science is a close (and ever improving) approximation to reality, and is therefore right, right?

One problem. I find myself thinking (in my black and white way) that all of science must be right. I know this is just as bad as thinking all of science is wrong (I read it somewhere), but I can't think of anything that could be wrong.

Can someone help me out please? Just one example of current scientific theory that is wrong. That's all I ask.
From: 4D Specs ® 31/10/2001 9:00:39
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478443
The real experiment to consider would just have the atom and a detector. The atom decays, the detector says it has decayed.


So the decay has been observed as soon as the detector detects it, hasn't it?
From: Chris (Avatar) 31/10/2001 9:04:50
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478444

Can someone help me out please? Just one example of current scientific theory that is wrong. That's all I ask.

Smart, very smart. :o)

Of course no current theory would be currently wrong, would it... because if it were it would be dismissed or modified. Of course it may be wrong at some time in the future, but if we take a hyperslice of science at this instant of time then all of current science is currently right within its established parameters. What do you think?

I think this is yet another strong argument in favour of subjective truth being the only truth.

Nice, 4D. Making me think! :o))
From: Chris (Avatar) 31/10/2001 9:09:15
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478445

Yes. So we set up an atom in a box. The box has completely reflecting walls. If the atom decays it will keep the emitted neutron bouncing around infinitely. In one wall of the box is a small door, and behind the door a detector. We leave the atom in the box with the door closed. Inside the box the atom exists in a superposition until we open the little door. The detector either reports or does not report a neutron and the superposition decays into either a decayed or un-decayed atom.

From: Geraint ® 31/10/2001 9:11:59
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478446
I know what you are doing :) - But

I can give you a couple that have been recently discarded as they do not agree with new observations;

1) Dark matter is not compact objects, like black holes & dead stars (microlensing in the halo).

2) The galaxy is not undergoing a feeding frenzy of small galaxies (new sky surveys).

3) We are the only system in the universe with planets.

What has happened is that regions of parameter space have been excluded with new observations, where as before there was scope for the above.

2)
From: 4D Specs ® 31/10/2001 9:36:47
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478464
Yes. So we set up an atom in a box. The box has completely reflecting walls. If the atom decays it will keep the emitted neutron bouncing around infinitely. In one wall of the box is a small door, and behind the door a detector. We leave the atom in the box with the door closed. Inside the box the atom exists in a superposition until we open the little door. The detector either reports or does not report a neutron and the superposition decays into either a decayed or un-decayed atom.


Sounds better. I'll have to think about that one. Is it true Schroedinger didn't much care for his cat experiment either?
From: 4D Specs ® 31/10/2001 9:41:20
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478471
Smart, very smart. :o)

Thanks


Of course no current theory would be currently wrong, would it... because if it were it would be dismissed or modified. Of course it may be wrong at some time in the future, but if we take a hyperslice of science at this instant of time then all of current science is currently right within its established parameters. What do you think?


Sounds good to me.

I think this is yet another strong argument in favour of subjective truth being the only truth.

Ooh, don't know about that?

Nice, 4D. Making me think! :o))

Thanks, but it really wasn't my idea!

From: John Devers ® 31/10/2001 11:04:27
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478571
Hi Chris and 4D, does this experiment become obsolete if you can predict the decay future of the atom?

As far as I can see this experiment became obsolete with the discoveries in the links below.

You can know the position of decay.


Have you read this?


http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:rfAkX8a-hIY:aph.atomki.hu/hiph/proofs/vol10_2-3/moller/moller.pdf+five+dimensional+deformation+space&hl=en" Topology of Five-Dimensional, Million-Grid-Point Fission Potential-Energy Surfaces

Or check out this page and it's links.

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/2001/010214/index.html" More on nuclear decay




From: John Devers ® 31/10/2001 11:28:05
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478598
Sorry it didn't work, If you want a look C&P:-)


http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/2001/010214/fig01.html

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/2001/010214/fig02.html

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/2001/010214/fig03.html

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/2001/010214/fig04.html

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/press/2001/010214/fig05.html



From: John Devers ® 31/10/2001 11:37:11
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478613
This bit may help too.

6) Symmetrical fission path/Asymmetrical fission path ĦĦHow a parent nucleus eventually becomes two daughters by experiencing shape change in the process of nuclear fission is determined uniquely when the path on the 5D potential energy surface (a single path, for example a mountain trail shown in topographical maps, is an example in the 2D space) is determined. In actual nuclear fissions, the most probable path from the quantum-mechanical viewpoint, is in general the path that goes up along a valley and after reaching a saddle point (col point), continues down another valley.

The present research has made it clear that, in the nuclear fission of actinide nuclei, there is in general more than one path on the potential energy surface and that two paths in fact determine the mass divisions.

These are (1) The most important path that passes the lowest col point (saddle point) and (2) The path passing the second lowest col point (saddle point).

One of these two paths is the symmetric fission path, with which a symmetric shape is maintained until the final symmetric fission, and the other is the asymmetric fission path, with which one of the daughters becomes heavier than the other and an asymmetric fission eventually takes place.

Which of the two saddle points becomes lower is determined according to the parent.

When symmetric deformation occurs at the lowest saddle point of a nucleus, the fission of this nucleus becomes symmetrical.

When asymmetrical deformation occurs at the lowest saddle point, the fission of this nucleus becomes asymmetric. When the two saddle points have almost the same height, the symmetric and asymmetric fissions will occur simultaneously.


From: Martin B 31/10/2001 12:07:02
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 478647
Hi all, Hi Paul

The point of the original question about the Cat-in-the-Box was not about after the box was opened. There is no dispute about the binary outcomes then.

The point was about the question before the box is opened. While we know that dead and alive are the only possibilities we cannot say that the cat is either dead or alive. We must say that it is undecided, which is where the binary logic breaks down.

As Chris points out, the Cat gendankenthingy is a reductio ab adsurdum. It is much clearer to use the two-slit experiment. To repeat myself, if we see an interference pattern we must say that the question "Did the photon pass through the left slit?" is undecided even though we know that there are only two possibilities.

BTW, if your (classical) computer is set up so that there is a 50% probability of a 1 or a 0 on any given bit, then I think you need to get a new one! :-)
From: Robert ® 31/10/2001 18:17:46
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479044
The point of the Schroedinger thought experiment...
What??!?!! It's a thought experiment?!?


...oops :)
From: Jane M ® 31/10/2001 18:27:11
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479048
Can someone help me out please? Just one example of current scientific theory that is wrong.

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/oct/perkel_p8_011029.html" Translation Just in the Cytoplasm? Think Again

As he contemplated the years spent on this project, and the time it took to publish this work, Cook couldn't really explain why 30 years of evidence pointing at nuclear translation was essentially ignored. "Paradigms are hard to shift," he says. "It's often hard to see why they arise in the first place."




From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 18:28:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479050

Martin B.,

... tall can be defined as "usually exceeding the height of another person".

I've already dealt with this. Asking a question where all the terms are
undefined is not an example of non-binary anything.


If you do not wish to believe in the results of fuzzy logic that's fine. But disputing its existence won't get
you very far.

If you want to believe in the existence of non-binary logic, that's fine, but
just asserting it's existence won't get you far.


IIRC you said "explain to me how that's science?". That is not an answer to a direct question.

My answer indicated the question was completely irrelevant.


Quantum superposition states (ie undecided) behave very different from collapsed states (ie unknown) with direct, measurable results.

How do you *know* that?


In the two-slit experiment, the question "does the photon pass through the left-hand slit" must be undecided if an interference pattern is observed. It cannot merely be unknown.

How does that support the idea of non-binary logic? All it supports is the
claim that what we think "particles" are - aren't.


Does anyone still think that Schroedinger's cat is relevant in any way?



From: Robert ® 31/10/2001 18:38:21
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479056
pfft quantum doesn't scare me:)... a quantum computer with n qubits can be simulated by a classical computer with 2n (binary) bits

If you want to believe in the existence of non-binary logic, that's fine, but
just asserting it's existence won't get you far.

err why can't he assert it's existence? Or do you mean exclusive existence as a valid model for the real world?

The axiom which says that a proposition must be either true or false (but not both) is an assertion ... it just depends what fundamental axioms you pick what flavour of logic you get

By the way, I was lectured on the derivation of Godel's theorem the other day. Although I didn't understand a bit of it, the proof seemed to hinge on the fact that there was this really huge sentence which couldn't be proved (nor its negation) into the formal arithmetic system. Which prompted the response in my head "err so what?". Still no mention of The Argument, whatever that is, and nothing about formal arithmetic being all wrong (I'm pretty sure it got 1+2=3 right)


From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 18:39:41
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479057


Wait a sec... 4D Specs asked:

>> Just one example of current scientific theory that is wrong.

Which is exactly the same question that Chris asked 4D Specs
in the previous thread!

And Chris's reply is:

Of course no current theory would be currently wrong, would it... because if it were it would be dismissed or modified.

Which is exactly the same answer that 4D Specs and I gave to the
same question!


Nice, 4D. Making me think! :o))

You think? What he did was say what you've said previously, and what you
replied what he replied previously.


From: Martin B 31/10/2001 18:46:33
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479064
I've already dealt with this. Asking a question where all the terms are
undefined is not an example of non-binary anything.

I have defined the term for you. However you are begging the question again. You (appear to) insist that any definition that is non-binary is not a suitable definition. That is a logical fallacy.

My answer indicated the question was completely irrelevant.

Your response did no such thing. (It was not an answer.) It indicated that you did not understand its relevance.

How do you *know* that?

From the two-slit, and many other quantum experiments.

How does that support the idea of non-binary logic? All it supports is the
claim that what we think "particles" are - aren't.

I don't think you get it do you? We know that the photon must pass through either the left or the right hand slit. There are no other possibilities, and we can check this directly.

However when we do not check this, we get a different answer - one which is undecided.

Of course, if was adopting your rhetorical devices, I would quote the following back at you

All it supports is the
claim that what we think logic is - isn't.

:-)

Does anyone still think that Schroedinger's cat is relevant in any way?

Yes.




From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 18:51:23
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479069


MartinB.,

While we know that dead and alive are the only possibilities we cannot say that the cat is either dead or alive.

Right...

We must say that it is undecided, which is where the binary logic breaks down.

How, exactly? I say again - not knowing if it's raining in Berlin at the moment
does not threaten binary logic. The cat is no different.



Robert,

... err why can't he assert [non-binary logic/s] existence?

He can. But I asked for a clear example, and I'm still waiting.


Or do you mean exclusive existence as a valid model for the real world?

Er, what?

Still no mention of The Argument, whatever that is...

The argument is whether Godel's theorem applies outside of formal
mathematical (axiomatic) systems or not.


From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 19:05:09
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479077

Martin B.,

I have defined the term for you.

If "tall" is defined (as x) (and "person" is defined), then it's simple binary
question: Is (height) > x


"My answer indicated the question was completely irrelevant."
Your response did no such thing. (It was not an answer.) It indicated that you did not understand its relevance.

I and others have explained why Schroedinger's Cat is a red herring. My answer
preempted that tedious explanation.


"How do you *know* that?"
From the two-slit, and many other quantum experiments.

You didn't answer the question.


I don't think you get it do you? We know that the photon must pass through either the left or the right hand slit. There are no other possibilities, and we can check this directly.

We could talk bout the two-slit experiments a lot, but it'd be a waste of time.
No one knows what's happening there. It's not an example of non-binary logic.
What it is, is an example of our mistaken assumptions. My guess is that
"photons" is a seriously flawed model (at that level).




From: sam 31/10/2001 19:09:58
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479078
How does all this fit in with your "there are no facts. Only interpretations," idea?, Paul?
From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 19:11:40
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479079


>> "there are no facts. Only interpretations," idea?,

Can't you see?
From: sam 31/10/2001 19:12:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479080
No, that's why I asked.

From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 20:55:46
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479182


>> Hate to nag and all...

There *is* an objective reality. But we can only ever have access to
(flawed) interpretations of it.

"There are no (accessable) objective facts, only (subjective)
interpretations of them."

I thought it was obvious.
From: sam 31/10/2001 20:58:25
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479186
I thought it was obvious.

Yes, you've said that - at least once. :) Maybe I'm just stoopid. What makes you think there's an objective reality? Just intuition?
From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 21:01:09
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479196

Convergent subjective realities indicate it.

It's logical.

It's the simplest scenario.

And it's intuitively correct (for the above reasons).
From: sam 31/10/2001 21:05:12
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479206
I guess where I'm having trouble with this, if everything is binary - then everything is either right, or wrong.

And if we can never interpret reality rightly, then we must always be wrong. So all interpretations are wrong.

And if everything is wrong, doesn't that make the claim that science is wrong, a meaningless statement?
From: Eissturm 31/10/2001 21:09:04
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479214

And if everything is wrong, doesn't that make the claim that science is wrong, a meaningless statement?

...or a very astute statement about the meaninglessness of our existence?

From: Paul H ® 31/10/2001 21:11:12
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479220


>> And if everything is wrong, doesn't that make the claim that science is
>> wrong, a meaningless statement?

Only if the truth is meaningless.


From: sam 31/10/2001 21:11:14
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479221
...or a very astute statement about the meaninglessness of our existence?

How is that astute?
From: sam 31/10/2001 21:13:55
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479227
Only if the truth is meaningless.

Can you explain that for me please? If everything is wrong, how is it meaningful to say that science is wrong? Doesn't it stand to reason that science is wrong, given that everything is wrong?
From: Eissturm 31/10/2001 21:19:30
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479243

How is that astute?

If (as per your reasoning above) everything is wrong, the statement that all of science is wrong is right=> spot on=> astute => and very appropriate for a science forum that is mainly interested in the rightness or other of science:)


From: sam 31/10/2001 21:26:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479255
If (as per your reasoning above) everything is wrong, the statement that all of science is wrong is right=> spot on=> astute => and very appropriate for a science forum that is mainly interested in the rightness or other of science:)


Something being spot on doesn't mean it's astute... even less so if it's a point that is necessarily and obviously true.

From: Eissturm 31/10/2001 21:31:14
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479263

...Something being spot on doesn't mean it's astute...

In this case, and in my opinion it was astute, but then I'm of NESB, perhaps you would give me your interpretation of "astute"?


...even less so if it's a point that is necessarily and obviously true...

In epistomological parlance, the statement might have been "necessarily" true...but in my "home-on-the-farm-kinda-understanding" it wasn't all that obvious, because a huge huge discussion as to what it meant followed...and that, to me was "astute"...or "clever" :);-)


From: sam 31/10/2001 21:38:09
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479269

In this case, and in my opinion it was astute, but then I'm of NESB, perhaps you would give me your interpretation of "astute"?


My understanding of astute is shrewd, insightful, keenly discerning etc.

In epistomological parlance, the statement might have been "necessarily" true...but in my "home-on-the-farm-kinda-understanding" it wasn't all that obvious, because a huge huge discussion as to what it meant followed...and that, to me was "astute"...or "clever" :);-)


How can it not be obvious, if you're working from the assumption that "there are no facts. Only interpretations."? You're implicitly assuming that everything is wrong - how is that discerning to later suggest that science, a subset of "everything", is wrong also? If I said that all birds are yellow, and then later said that a canary was yellow, would that be astute? I fail to see the difference.

The huge discussion has kept on going because only Paul is working from the assumption that a) everything is binary, and b) everything (all our interpretations) is wrong.
From: Martin B 01/11/2001 10:55:39
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479759
If "tall" is defined (as x) (and "person" is defined), then it's simple binary question: Is (height) > x

As I said, you are begging the question. If you cannot see a simple logical fallacy like that then there is little point having a conversation about logic.

The problem is that in the real, messy human world that most of us live in, the word "tall" has a clear meaning, but the term x above cannot be applied unambiguously.

If your "absolute truth" is going to encompass the whole Universe, it will certainly have to deal with human cognitive states and all the messiness and contradiction that that entails.
I and others have explained why Schroedinger's Cat is a red herring. My answer preempted that tedious explanation.

To repeat myself, you have given no such explanation, tedious or otherwise. The fact that you can repeat

I say again - not knowing if it's raining in Berlin at the moment does not threaten binary logic. The cat is no different.

indicates to me a certain willful blindness. Not knowing whether it is raining in Berlin or not is fundamentally different to quantum superposition states. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say "the cat is no different."

In the former an outcome has been determined, but my particular subjective consciousness is not aware of that outcome. I can easily check with another observer to find this outcome.

The latter are undecided because in a very real sense the Universe has not yet decided the outcome. There is no possible observer in the Universe that I could check with to find the outcome.

"How do you *know* that?"
From the two-slit, and many other quantum experiments.
You didn't answer the question.

If by this you mean that how can I be sure that my knowledge is a 100.00% accurate representation of reality when all human knowledge (with one notable exception) falls short of this, then I will decline to answer at least until some other matters have been resolved.

If by this you mean something else then please indicate how what I said falls short of an answer and I will be happy to do what I can to remedy this.

We could talk bout the two-slit experiments a lot, but it'd be a waste of time. No one knows what's happening there. It's not an example of non-binary logic. What it is, is an example of our mistaken assumptions.

Of course we know quite a lot about what's going on. (Not 100%, but whoever made such a foolish claim?) What we do know poses a fundamental challenge to simple binary logic, so it's far from a waste of time discussing it. Unless you prefer to ignore contrary evidence, which as we all know is a hallmark of ego-driven, hierarchical science :-)

My guess is that "photons" is a seriously flawed model (at that level).

Now why do you say that? Because they don't fit in with your binary logic?




From: Paul H ® 01/11/2001 11:02:42
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479771
Sam,

"Only if the truth is meaningless."
Can you explain that for me please?

If everything is wrong, how is it meaningful to say that science is wrong?

Can you explain that to me please? How can "truth" be meaningless? You
enjoy toying with 'definitions' - define meaningless, define truth. Analyse
their relationship. Get back to me.


... How can it not be obvious

If it's obvious, why did you make me explain it to you earlier?


From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 01/11/2001 11:02:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479772

a bit of binary logic (actually predicate logic)

is 2pi = 6 plus or minus 0.5?

the statement evaluates to truth

The statement "all of science is wrong" evaluates to false if there is one statement of science that evaluates to truth

Does 2PiR= radius of a circle?
Does one massive body attract another?
Does a current flow when two different metals are brought together?

MS
From: Paul H ® 01/11/2001 12:08:51
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479930

Martin Smith,

Does 2PiR= radius of a circle?

This has been replied to at length on at least two previous occasions. The
language of mathematics is not Science any more than Swedish is. Putting
a label on something is not Science. "Cow" is not Science.


Does one massive body attract another?

No. Zones of no-time attract each other. (Refer earlier conversation about
the mysterious nature of gravity).


Does a current flow when two different metals are brought together?

We don't know what 'metals' are, nor are we sure what 'current is'.


Martin B.,

As I said, you are begging the question. If you cannot see a simple logical fallacy like that then there is little point having a conversation about logic.

Never mind the textbook-phraseology, if you can't show how I'm wrong, then
there is little point having a conversation about logic with you.


The problem is that in the real, messy human world that most of us live in, the word "tall" has a clear meaning...

No it doesn't. This had been replied to earlier. "Tall" is meaningless. Asking
a meaningless question says nothing about binary-logic.


If your "absolute truth" is going to encompass the whole Universe, it will certainly have to deal with human cognitive states and all the messiness and contradiction that that entails.

That's the point of the whole topic. Human cognitive states prevent access to
the Truth. That's why Science will always be wrong.


but my particular subjective consciousness is not
aware of that outcome. I can easily check with another observer to find this outcome.

No, you can't. You can't ask another observer about what is happening in
Berlin *now* (which is what I said).

What you will be doing in that case is consulting a historical record.

There's no difference between Berlin and the Cat. There's no difference between the Cat and that tree outside you're not currently looking at. I don't think you
quite get the implications of the Cat experiment. Why don't you start another
thread about it?


The latter are undecided because in a very real sense the Universe has not yet decided the outcome.

You have no evidence that this is the case. It's merely one possible
interpretation. I've giving you another. Your over-confidence is entirely
unjustified. Open that other thread. Or refer to previous threads on the Cat
experiment.


" My guess is that "photons" is a seriously flawed model (at that level)."
Now why do you say that? Because they don't fit in with your binary logic?

No, because no one knows what's happening there.


From: Kothos ® 01/11/2001 12:12:27
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479937

"Tall" is meaningless.

But I use it all the time and it always has the desired effect - therefore it must contain some meaning...

Sorry to pounce on one small sentence in a very large thread that I have not been involving myself in, but this side of the argument seems to me to be extreme and the other side of the argument seems to be missing the point all the time.
From: Paul H ® 01/11/2001 12:19:25
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479956

>> But I use it all the time and it always has the desired effect - therefore it must contain some meaning...

No, it's meaningless in the context in which it was raised. Which you apparently
haven't read.

From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 01/11/2001 12:20:50
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479960

Paul you putting a different label on it does not make it wrong.

You brought up the Pi question several times, but whenever I mention it you say Pi isn't science. Well actually it is. Geometry is a science. You have a great trouble understanding the meaninings of

wrong
science
label
pornograpghy

The fact is when I put two things together that we label as metals (why do I have to know what makes a metal) the thing we label as electricity flows (why do we have to know why). This is the first step of science. It is not wrong. It is an observed event. It happens. That is science.

If I get my little soy packet (they one shaped as a fish) - Fill it mostly with water then put it in a plastic bottle filled with water. Will it sink if I squeeze the bottle?

Yes it will. That is science.

If I get into a very full tub of water will some spill out?

Yes it will. That is science.

Are those things wrong?

Massive bodies do attract each other. Not knowing why does not mean they do not. That is the first step of science and it is not wrong.

MS
From: Kothos ® 01/11/2001 12:23:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 479969

No, it's meaningless in the context in which it was raised. Which you apparently haven't read.

Okay, I'll take your word for it and retract my comment. (Unless you want to tell me what context it was raised in?)
From: Martin B 01/11/2001 12:45:41
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480027
There's no difference between Berlin and the Cat. There's no difference between the Cat and that tree outside you're not currently looking at.

There is fundamental difference between classical behaviour and quantum behaviour.

I don't think you quite get the implications of the Cat experiment.

I don't think you quite get the implications of the Cat experiment.

Gee, this is fun :-)

You have no evidence that this is the case.

I have plenty of evidence. Double-slit experiment. Delayed-choice experiments. You choose not to look at the evidence, but that is no concern of mine.

It's merely one possible
interpretation. I've giving you another.

My interpretation accords with the agreed observations. You are looking for a hidden variables theory. We know very well the constraints placed on any such theory, constraints which make it unable to perform in the way you wish.

Your over-confidence is entirely unjustified.

Paul, you really should learn to be reflexive.


From: 4D Specs ® 01/11/2001 14:25:00
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480274
To try and avoid some of the repetition, may I summarise a few points that everyone agrees about:

1) We can define "wrong" so that none of science is wrong.

2) We can (with a little effort) define "wrong" so that some of science is wrong and some is not wrong (right we might say)

3) We can define wrong so that all of science is wrong.

Now the interesting points of discussion (to me) are:

Why is definition 3) useful? (I think it is)

Is definition 3) so far from the usual meaning of wrong that it doesn't make any sense? (I think it isn't)

If we adopt this definition, why is there nothing wrong with this state of affairs (or nothing much wrong), or is it indeed a good thing?
From: Robert ® 01/11/2001 14:42:00
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480311
3) We can define wrong so that all of science is wrong
Wrong = nonzero uncertainty? Is that the definition?
From: Martin B 01/11/2001 14:46:32
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480321
I think that's it Robert.

"Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
From: 4D Specs ® 01/11/2001 15:33:49
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480432
Wrong = nonzero uncertainty? Is that the definition?


That would work, but there are probably much less broad definitions that would also work, and be more interesting.

How about: "a scientific theory is wrong if it leads to predictions that are found to be inconsistent with reality in any respect"


No doubt you can pick holes in that (I've only just thought of it), but how about trying to think of a better one instead?

The main point is that it should negate the idea that we are this *holds thumb and forefinger together* close to getting it right.

Yeah, I know, no-one thinks that.
From: James R (Avatar) 01/11/2001 15:54:44
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480467
Corrections of factual errors by Paul H :

I say again - not knowing if it's raining in Berlin at the moment does not threaten binary logic. [Schrodinger's] cat is no different.

Martin is correct that it is different. You'll need to read up on quantum theory if you want to understand this.

We could talk bout the two-slit experiments a lot, but it'd be a waste of time. No one knows what's happening there.

Wrong. Quantum theory is very well understood. Just because you don't know what's happening there doesn't mean other people don't.

My guess is that "photons" is a seriously flawed model (at that level).

I had to laugh at this. As if you are in any position to judge this. Hahaha! In fact, the photon model is immensely useful and well tested. Einstein won a Nobel prize for it.

"Tall" is meaningless

Most language has meaning. This word has meaning.



Happy thoughts, Paul!

JR


From: mike h ® 01/11/2001 16:25:16
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480543
Hi 4D Specs,
For mine, the problem is that if you need to use a definition of 'wrong' such that _all_ of science is wrong, then according to that definition all of pretty much any form of human endeavour is also wrong. Which doesn't make it a very useful definition.
Using your suggested definition: "a scientific theory is wrong if it leads to predictions that are found to be inconsistent with reality in any respect" would I suspect result in much of current science _not_ being wrong.
Anyway, science is a process - a study - a discipline. It is carried out in a huge diversity of ways, from simple hypothesis-testing experiments to 'big science' theories. All are subject to modicication. So I reckon it's safe to say that all of our current scientific theories may one day be updated or changed or thrown out (in fact most of 'em probably will). But I don't think the statement 'all of science, is wrong' (grammar aside) is of much use. You need to come up with a particular definition of science and a particular definition of wrong. You can nail your colours to those definitions of course, but that won't make the statement right.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
-Abraham Lincoln
Cheers,
mike h
From: 4D Specs ® 01/11/2001 17:40:13
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480787
For mine, the problem is that if you need to use a definition of 'wrong' such that _all_ of science is wrong, then according to that definition all of pretty much any form of human endeavour is also wrong. Which doesn't make it a very useful definition.


I would have thought that if people didn't realise that what they were doing was wrong, and stating this fact lead to them doing it less wrong, then it would be a very useful definition.
From: Greg L. ® 01/11/2001 18:09:13
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480859



Can someone help me out please? Just one example of current scientific theory that is
wrong. That's all I ask.



Newtonian gravity gives the wrong predictions for a number of observational regimes, for instance, the deflection of light near the Sun, the behaviour of space and time near a BH, or the kinematics of objects moving very close to the speed of light. This means newtonian mechanics is wrong and doesn't apply to these regimes-but it doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate in regimes where speeds are slow compared to light and gravitational fields are rather weak. In physics at least, Popper's strict falsification doesn't apply-we don't throw away the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom completely because it doesn't work with multielectron atoms-we just use it as an approximate model for the H atom, which is less accurate than the quantum mechanical model.

This isn't to say science is 'just a construct' not useful for describing 'objective' reality-this nonsense is way off the mark. Also, science is not black and white, because it is simply not powerful enough to ever fully describe all realities in all their entireties. For instance, science cannot explain religious experience, contingency, or problems in metaphysics-but it does give us great insights into the natural world that far exceed the power of theology, philosophy, or other methods of previous investigation. I think science has shown itself to be the supreme method of describing physical reality accurately, but it seems to break down in areas not concerned with the physical universe. That is why scientific materialism usually gets (quite rightly) attacked by theologians and philosophers when it tries to write other fields of knowledge off as useless, when it itself is a philosophical system riddled with as many problems and inconsistencies as any other philosophy.
From: Paul H ® 01/11/2001 18:42:30
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 480913

Greg L.,

This means newtonian mechanics is wrong and doesn't apply to these regimes-but it doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate in regimes...

Whaddya mean "regimes"? There's only one regime - the objective
universe. Science is wrong. Never mind about trying to pretend this isn't so by
artificially dividing it up into "regimes"!


This isn't to say science is 'just a construct' not useful for describing 'objective' reality-this nonsense is way off the mark.

You're the one talking nonsense. Where did you the get idea that anyone has
said, "science is just a construct not useful for describing 'objective' reality"?
Well?


Also, science is not black and white, because it is simply not powerful enough to ever fully describe all realities in all their entireties.

You seem to be saying that Science will always be wrong.


For instance, science cannot explain religious
experience, contingency, or problems in metaphysics...

I don't know why it suits you to insist this. Science is just as well suited to these
questions as any other.


But it does give us great insights into the natural
world...

There is nothing *outside* the natural world. Therefore Science applies equally
to everything. It's a false discontinuity to imagine otherwise.


I think science has shown itself to be the supreme method of describing physical reality accurate...

Whaddya mean "supreme"? It's the only one that's every been tried


...but it seems to break down in areas not concerned with the physical universe....

What's an example of something outside the physical universe?


From: Paul H ® 02/11/2001 10:54:39
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481533

Corrections of factual errors by James R,

"I say again - not knowing if it's raining in Berlin at the moment does not threaten binary logic. [Schrodinger's] cat is no different."
Martin is correct that it is different. You'll need to read up on quantum theory if you want to understand this.

Martin and yourself are wrong, they do not threaten binary logic. You'll need to
read up on quantum theory if you want to understand this.


"We could talk bout the two-slit experiments a lot, but it'd be a waste of time. No one knows what's happening there."
Wrong. Quantum theory is very well understood. Just because you don't know what's happening there doesn't mean other people don't.

Wrong. No one has a clue about what's happening in the two-slit scenario.
You'll need to read up on quantum theory if you want to understand this.


" My guess is that "photons" is a seriously flawed model (at that level)."
I had to laugh at this. As if you are in any position to judge this. Hahaha! In fact, the photon model is immensely useful and well tested. Einstein won a Nobel prize for it.

I had to laugh at this! If you think that "photons" is the last word on modeling
light, you clearly have no knowledge of the history of science. Haha...*rolls
eyes*

In fact the two-slit experiments show that our understanding of what we have
been calling "particles" is seriously flawed. Einstein didn't understand what was
really happening the two-slit experiment either.


"'Tall' is meaningless"
Most language has meaning. This word has meaning.

It's meaningless in the context it was raised. As you would know if you'd
bothered to this thread.



Happy thoughts Jimmy!

From: mike h ® 02/11/2001 11:28:48
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481577
Hi 4D,
I would have thought that if people didn't realise that what they were doing was wrong, and stating this fact lead to them doing it less wrong, then it would be a very useful definition.
Fair call. However, what I was getting at was that it's not very useful in differentiating science from anything else. ie: 'all of science is wrong', and using these same definitions 'all of history is wrong', 'all of economics is wrong', 'all of everything is wrong'. Which tends to leave me saying, 'sure, great, big deal'.
Your definition, "a scientific theory is wrong if it leads to predictions that are found to be inconsistent with reality in any respect", seems to me to be pretty much consistent with the ideal of falsificationist science is it is supposed to happen now. But if all science is wrong, how do you establish whether anything is conststent with reality or not? You can't, because your attempt to do so is wrong. So 'all science is wrong' is back to not being very useful. Whereas "a scientific theory is wrong if it leads to predictions that are found to be inconsistent with reality in any respect" is useful - as an ideal to which to aspire.
Cheers,
mike h
From: Martin B 02/11/2001 12:31:26
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481646
For Peter B.

The two-slit experiment is one of the classic experiments of Quantum Mechanics. It's results have been verified many thousands of times.

The two-slit experiment is typically performed with photons (light) but can also be performed with electrons, neutrons or any other quantum 'particle' with the same results. (So Paul's comments that the 'photon' model is wrong are a little misguided.)

The basis of the experiment is this: a light source emits photons towards a screen with two thin, parallel slits. Beyond the slits is a screen, on which the light is observed. In normal circumstances what is observed is an interference pattern on the screen.

Classically, an interference pattern is explained as a result of contributions from both slits towards the electromagnetic wave at any point. However the photon is a quantized particle. Whenever a photon is observed, it is in a single point in space. We can observe this directly - the interference pattern is built up, point by point on the screen.

So which slit does the photon travel through? Well we can check. We can put a photon counter on each slit. When we do this, we observe that indeed, every photon landing on the screen goes through one slit or the other. But when we do this, the interference pattern disappears! When we see the photons passing through the slit, the screen shows a simple addition of photons from one slit plus photons from the other slit, with no interference.

We have the choice: we can either observe the photons going through the slit, or we can observe the interference pattern.

The explanation for the interference pattern under QM is that, unless it is observed, the position of the photon is indeterminate - in a sense, the Universe has not 'decided' which slit it goes through.

Note that the photons are not interfering with each other. The interference pattern shows up, even when only one photon at a time is sent from the source to the screen. Each photon is interfering with itself, but only if we don't know where it is.

It gets even wierder though. We can set up a delayed-choice experiment where we can decide which to observe - the photon through the slit, or the interference pattern on the screen - after the photon has passed the slits altogether, providing further evidence that the indeterminacy of the photon's position is fundamental not merely an artifact of the experiment.

We know a lot about this experiment. Paul's claims that we know nothing are clearly rhetorical and intended to deflect attention from the fact that what we do know seriously challenges Paul's completely objective deterministic Universe of binary logic and traffic lights.

We do not have a completley intuive picture of the quantum world, but our mathematical picture is surprisingly accurate. It appears that ultimately the Universe does not provide a pretty intuitive picture for any of us - you me, or Paul H.
From: Paul H ® 02/11/2001 12:41:24
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481665

The explanation for the interference pattern under QM is that, unless it is observed, the position of the photon is indeterminate
- in a sense, the Universe has not 'decided' which slit it goes through.

This is misleading. You only mention one possible interpretation - like I said.
There are others. That's because no one knows *what's* happening.


Note that the photons are not interfering with each other. The interference pattern shows up, even when only one photon at a
time is sent from the source to the screen. Each photon is interfering with itself, but only if we don't know where it is.

Merely one (unlikely) interpretation. Like I said.


We know a lot about this experiment.

This is just a rhetorical statement that tries to mislead people into thinking
that Science knows what's going on there, which it doesn't.


Paul's claims that we know nothing...

...Was never made. You just made that up for rhetorical purposes. (Ever
thought of politics?)


...the fact that what we do know seriously challenges... completely objective deterministic Universe of binary logic and traffic lights.

More rhetoric. you have yet to provide an example of non-binary logic.

Your lengthy text above does not do that. And I still think such large and
pointless asides would be better in their own thread.


From: Z 02/11/2001 12:43:52
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481671
Hahahaha...
if only William of Ockham were prowling around today.
If it fits the data, and it can predict more data, it is acceptable. If it correctly predicts more data, it is likely to be correct.
From: Paul H ® 02/11/2001 12:47:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481680

So do the alternate interpretations... hahahah (oh, sorry, I'm being an
idiot too. Have to draw the line at mirroring somewhere!)
From: Z 02/11/2001 12:49:37
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481686
Yeah well the point is generally it's easier to keep things simple, which is why people stick with the simpler explanations.
From: Martin B 02/11/2001 12:57:59
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481705
Paul

Forgetting for a moment anything to do with QM, what is your interpretation of the agreed empirical results of the two-slit experiment? Or do you dispute those results?
From: Paul H ® 02/11/2001 13:01:08
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481712

Wrong again Martin. Try reading, and responding to, what I actually
write, not a knee-jerk assumption of... I dunno... whatever it is that
makes you consistantly reply to things I didn't say.

I never said the results were "disputed".

Are you saying you are unaware of alternate explanations?
From: Martin B 02/11/2001 13:02:10
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481717
Oh yes, and for the benefit of new arrivals Paul H has said three times:

Wrong. No one has a clue about what's happening in the two-slit scenario.

or similar.

I apologise to anyone who may have been mislead by my translation of that as

Paul's claims that we know nothing

about the two slit experiment.
From: Paul H ® 02/11/2001 13:04:36
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481724

Don't pretend to be dumb. I was talking about the possible explanations of
the 'results'.

I hope that was just more rhetoric.
From: Martin B 02/11/2001 13:20:54
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481761
I never said the results were "disputed".

I never said you did. I asked you a question.
(Of course this means I could quote your entire post back to you at this point. No matter.)

I am aware of several different interpretations of the QM formalism: Copenhagen, transactional, many-worlds, Bohmian. Of these the Bohmian hidden variables, and arguably, the hidden-worlds interpretations argue for deterministic outcomes.

Are these what you are talking about? If not could you kindly answer my question? If so could you possibly explain why you say they are "likely"?
From: Peter B ® 02/11/2001 13:29:17
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481777
Martin B said: “The explanation for the interference pattern under QM is that, unless it is observed, the position of the photon is indeterminate - in a sense, the Universe has not 'decided' which slit it goes through.”

Paul H ® said: “This is misleading. You only mention one possible interpretation - like I said. There are others. That's because no one knows *what's* happening.”

Martin B said: “Note that the photons are not interfering with each other. The interference pattern shows up, even when only one photon at a time is sent from the source to the screen. Each photon is interfering with itself, but only if we don't know where it is.”

Paul H ® said: “Merely one (unlikely) interpretation. Like I said.”

RR, can you give us an idea of some of these other interpretations?
From: Paul H ® 02/11/2001 13:45:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481819

Martin B.,

The many-worlds idea is, in a way, simpler. Less magical (which can only
be a good thing).

From: Martin B 02/11/2001 13:54:42
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481838
I understand the appeal of the many-words theory.

Note however that in this interpretation the worlds split at the sites of measurement-like activities corresponding to irreversible processes.

In the two-slit experiment, in the absence of a photon counter, the location of the photon would still be indeterminate until it hit the screen under the MW interpretation (in the absence of the Bohmian interpretation.)
From: James R (Avatar) 02/11/2001 14:38:18
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481916
Correction to Paul H's new factual mistake:

In fact the two-slit experiments show that our understanding of what we have been calling "particles" is seriously flawed. Einstein didn't understand what was
really happening the two-slit experiment either.

The current description of light and matter involves wave-particle duality. In this context, the two-slit experiment is well understood. What Einstein thought about this is neither here nor there. He died in 1955.

JR
From: James R (Avatar) 02/11/2001 14:42:21
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481922
Paul H:

Merely one (unlikely) interpretation. Like I said.

I invite you to put your money where your mouth is and tell us what you think the most likely interpretation is.

JR


From: Peter B ® 02/11/2001 15:06:56
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 481958
James R: sorry, I retract that.

Paul H ®: would you care to comment on my question? I remember seeing the two-slit experiment being discussed in Michael Crichton's book about time travel, and I'd like to know more.
From: 4D Specs ® 02/11/2001 20:12:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482303
Peter B - You might like to look at the Schroedinger's Tunnel thread. There is something about the two slit experiment in there.
From: Paul H ® 03/11/2001 10:40:15
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482829

On Godel's theorem:

And (Godel's Theorem) has been taken to imply that you'll never
entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed
system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on
what it knows about itself.

- Jones and Wilson, in "An Incomplete Education".


It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through
use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result,
is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all
phenomena of the external world can be deduced.

- Boyer, in "History of Mathematics" .
From: 4D Specs ® 03/11/2001 11:06:48
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482878
Anyone who thinks the contention that "all of science is wrong" is just too stupid for words please stop here. You'll be wasting your time reading this.

I'd like to talk about the difference between the Engineering Method and the Scientific Method.

The Engineering Method (which I have never seen written down, or even discussed) is as follows:

1) Get brief from client
2) Guess a design
3) Analyse it
4) Evaluate the WIFO (will it fall over?) factor
5) If WIFO = "probably" then go to 7)
6) If WIFO = "probaby not" then go to 8)
7) Make a stronger design then go to 3)
8) Evaluate the CIMIC (How much cheaper can I make it?) factor
9) If CIMIC = "a lot" then go to 11)
10) If CIMIC = "not much" then go to 12)
11) Make a cheaper design then go to 2)
12) Build it
13) Evaluate the DIFO (Did it fall over?) factor
14) If DIFO = "yes" then go to 7)
15) If DIFO = "no" then next time start at 11)
16) Finish

This is a slight simplification, but if we interpret "falling over" as "not performing to the specified requirements", it's pretty close. Note that in spite of the vauge sounding terms in the middle we have a clear cut yes/no at the end. If our final guess at the design was good enough, then it is "right" even if all the intervening steps were "wrong".

Now how about the scientific method?

1) Make some observations
2) Make a guess about what's going on
3) Make some predictions based on your guess
4) Make some more observations
5) Did observations agree with predictions?
6) If yes, return to 3)
7) If no, return to 2)

The important think is there is no step 8)

We are always refining the guess.

Why would we do that if we didn't think it was wrong?
From: Paul H ® 03/11/2001 11:59:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482936

>> Why would we do that if we didn't think it was wrong?

Similar things have been said a few different ways in these threads, including
in the very first post. There's been no intelligble reply.





From: 4D Specs ® 03/11/2001 12:10:26
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482948
It has occurred to me that no-one has defined "science" (let alone "wrong").

No wonder we can't agree if we don't know what we are talking about.

To tell if what you are doing is science, ask yourself "why am I doing this?"

If the answer is "because I want to know how this thing works", then what you are doing is science.

If the answer is "because I want to make a better gizmo", then what you are doing is engineering.

The "gizmo" can be a bridge, a car, a medical procedure, a cure for cancer, a space station, a procedure for evaluating pshycological traits, a genetically modified crop. It's all engineering.

Scientists don't like this definition much, because it means that many people who call themselves scientists are in fact engineers (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Remember, engineering is usually right (even when it is wrong), and science is always wrong (even when it is right).
From: Paul H ® 03/11/2001 12:27:32
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482956

>> It has occurred to me that no-one has defined "science" (let alone "wrong").

In the first post in these threads, Science was defined as the search for
objective Truth.

The fact that we search for it means that we think it exists.

The fact that we *continue* to search for it means we agree we haven't found
it yet. Which means we agree that what we have now it not the truth.

And if you don't have the truth, you have untruth. And that's another
word for "wrong".

The fact that science continues is proof that it's wrong.

From: B.C. ® 03/11/2001 12:30:56
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482961
Hi 4DSpecs...It has occurred to me that no-one has defined "science" (let alone "wrong").

In my opinion any engineering priciple would stem from a scientific conclusion.
Just as experiments stem from theories, as opposed to theories stemming from experiments...not real sure if that is a valid analogy or not....What I am saying is that the steam engine was invented when James Watt theorised that the cap on the boiling pot of tea was jumping up and down because of water/steam pressure, thus things developed from that theory.
From what I know physics is the basis of all sciences. I did see a representation of that illustrated with physics being the base of a pyramid, then came chemistry, then biology/medicine and so on up to the apex...maths is said to be the language of physics in this representation.
What do you think?


From: Indigo ® 03/11/2001 12:31:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482963
And if you don't have the truth, you have untruth

imho, if you don't have all the truth, you could have some of it... and it's not necessarily having untruth.

Indigo Chris \

From: Paul H ® 03/11/2001 12:42:29
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482981

>> if you don't have all the truth, you could have some of it... and it's not
>> necessarily having untruth.

Well yes, Indigo, that view is a widely held one. But is pi = 3.14? If you
ask someone how old they are and they say "twenty", don't they really mean
20 years, 3 months, 2 days, 11 minutes etc etc.?

Another view is that either something is true, or it isn't. Binary logic.
(It's been discussed a lot here).

From: Indigo ® 03/11/2001 12:47:27
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482991
Pi=3.14 is, of course, only part of the truth, and in that form has its uses. Pi=3.14159265359 is more of the truth, but still not all, and therefore more useful than 3.14. I don't see these as being untruths, however.

Indigo Chris \

From: 4D Specs ® 03/11/2001 12:50:33
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 482997
In my opinion any engineering priciple would stem from a scientific conclusion.


Some not all. I'd say most engineering principles started out as a sort of distillation of accumulated experience (from trial and error). The Romans for instance built excellent arch bridges without having a clue how they worked.


Just as experiments stem from theories, as opposed to theories stemming from experiments...not real sure if that is a valid analogy or not....

Surely the observation has to come first

What I am saying is that the steam engine was invented when James Watt theorised that the cap on the boiling pot of tea was jumping up and down because of water/steam pressure, thus things developed from that theory.


I don't know Watt's thought processes, but I 'd guess it was mostly engineering. He observed a phenomenon and wondered how it could be put to good use (canny Scott that he was). As far as I know he didn't improve the understanding of what was happening.


From what I know physics is the basis of all sciences. I did see a representation of that illustrated with physics being the base of a pyramid, then came chemistry, then biology/medicine and so on up to the apex...maths is said to be the language of physics in this representation.

I'd agree with that.

There is physics
and all the rest is engineering.

No moraj judgements here btw, it's just that the scientist's job is much harder than the engineer's (in fact it's impossible).
From: B.C. ® 03/11/2001 14:11:30
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 483058
>> It has occurred to me that no-one has defined "science" (let alone "wrong")
Science is the means of describing how/why things operate in our universe, putting it as simply as possible.


In the first post in these threads, Science was defined as the search for
objective Truth.

See my previous answer

The fact that we search for it means that we think it exists.

See my first answer....

The fact that we *continue* to search for it means we agree we haven't found
it yet. Which means we agree that what we have now it not the truth.

What science describes at present is mostly factual..as we progress we find new areas, and new mysteries to solve..eg BH's, before the BB ect, ect, these areas being relativley new are in some cases incomplete...this does not make ALL of science wrong or incomplete....just the incomplete areas.

And if you don't have the truth, you have untruth. And that's another
word for "wrong".

Everything is not just black and white, to use another posters analogy. In most Earthly science and some cosmological science we have accurate descriptions of why and how....in some areas this is incomplete..that does not mean all of science is incomplete and all of science is wrong.
We have achieved a great deal of success[our current technological advancements vouch for that], and have some great science laws and theories to work with and have been working with some for three hundred years and will continue to work with them for another thousand years in Newtons case.GR is another example that has accellerated our knowledge of the mysteries of space and time.These will all still be worked with in eons to come and will also be given extra dimensions to understand further areas where they appear to break down.

The fact that science continues is proof that it's wrong.

Most lay people would not agree with that summation due to the narrow field of view of everything being just black or white that that conclusion is based on.

In this situation I stand with the vast majority and confirm my belief that all of science/history not only is not ALL wrong, but indeed cannot possibly be All wrong.
From: James R (Avatar) 04/11/2001 12:16:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 483792
Regarding 4D Specs' point by point method and various follow-ups:

This makes the mistake of treating "science" as a single thing. The fact that science as a whole continues to be refined does not mean that all science is wrong by any stretch. There are some facts set in concrete. There is an exit from the refinement process. We know everything there is to know about some things.

JR
From: Chris (Avatar) 04/11/2001 12:54:43
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 483815

4D specs wrote:
Now how about the scientific method?

1) Make some observations
2) Make a guess about what's going on
3) Make some predictions based on your guess
4) Make some more observations
5) Did observations agree with predictions?
6) If yes, return to 3)
7) If no, return to 2)

Nice post, 4D. :o)

I agree that science is always searching for better answers. I further agree that this implies we assume some better answer can be found. I don't agree this always makes the previous answer "wrong" - for example, is there not an explicit inclusion of "correctness" in your point 5 above? ie observations agree with predictions: "tick" - correct! :o) Is a modification likely to change those correct predictions? I don't think so... that would be valueless, wouldn't it?

An example:
Some people in this thread like to insist that newtonian gravity is "wrong" because there is now general relativity to describe gravity. Ah - but Newton's gravity correctly predicts that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero. This is a case of theoretical prediction and observation agreeing (ie the science is right). Along comes GR which modifies Newtonian gravity. Using the schwarzschild metric and something called Birkhoff's theorem, we can show that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero, precisely as predicted by Newton's gravity.

So in your table of progressions above, we've gone from making predictions about field strength inside spherical shells and testing those predictions in newton model to new model of gravity - but the correct prediction was incorporated into the new theory. The language which explains the result is different (ie the maths is different) but the result and the reason for the result is still right.

Now, come the future when we have a modified theory of gravity to include quantum gravitation, or supergravity or string theory or whatever, and that theory will still include the result that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero.

Why?

Because that bit of science is right. Now, and forever. :o)

From: Paul H ® 06/11/2001 13:33:41
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 485996

One way they may try to do this, is to
suggest that because microwave ovens work, for example, Science must be
Correct. Although the ignorance of the history of science this implies is almost
touching in it's completeness, one only has to wave a history book in the
direction of one to dispel this misconception.

The history of science is full of examples of things "working" without science
knowing quite why. Because calling pi "3" is often good enough. And very
obviously, if our reason for understanding "why" can be improved, our previous
understandings were faulty - or -"wrong". Bloody obviously.

Another smoke-screen that can be employed is the "well, it may not be
*completely* correct, but, er, it's close?". Sorry, no prizes for "nearly. Either
something is right, or it's wrong. Science is wrong.

From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 20:14:23
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486682
Now, come the future when we have a modified theory of gravity to include quantum gravitation, or supergravity or string theory or whatever, and that theory will still include the result that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero.

Why?

Because that bit of science is right. Now, and forever. :o)


An excellent example of the wrong thinking that results from the idea that parts of science are right.

The gravitational field inside a real spherical shell is not zero, because there is no such thing as a uniform spherical shell. Of course we can theorise such a shell, but that is maths, not science.

We have no idea what the outcome of new theories of gravity may be. A zero gravitational field at the quantum level seems unlikely to me though.
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 21:09:17
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486765

I don't see how whether we have a perfect sphere or not matters. Science is in part prediction. We are predicting what would happen if we had such a sphere.

So you are saying if a perfect sphere existed the gravity would not be zero?

If the gravity would be zero, that part of science is correct. It is science not just maths (though we USE maths to work out the answer). I cannot see how you could dismiss this as not science?

Then given any pertubation from perfect sphere we can say the gravity would not be zero.

Or are you saying the gravity would then be zero?

MS
From: Hurler 06/11/2001 21:22:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486776
From what I've read of this thread I get the impression that someone out their is saying, that all we have achieved (good or bad) is from a whole lot of 'lucky guesses'.

Interesting!
From: UNco 06/11/2001 21:22:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486777
let me ask you this

If you get sick.
do you go see the doctor?

If you get a a car crash...and your head is cracked open ...are you going to the hospital?

or u gunna wave some crystals over it ?
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 21:29:46
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486791
From what I've read of this thread I get the impression that someone out their is saying, that all we have achieved (good or bad) is from a whole lot of 'lucky guesses'.


I'm afraid you've lost me on that one. I haven't read anything like that. Care to show me a post that says that?


From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 21:31:32
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486795
let me ask you this

If you get sick.
do you go see the doctor?

If you get a a car crash...and your head is cracked open ...are you going to the hospital?

or u gunna wave some crystals over it ?


I'm not sure what thread this was intended for, but it obviously wasn't this one.
From: UNco 06/11/2001 21:35:54
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486802
it proves science is right.

From: UNco 06/11/2001 21:42:01
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486810
ikm gunna post some articles 4 u all 2 read about this garabge. the first one is all about deductive-nomological logic vs deductive statistical vs inductive statisitcal

W. salmon, scintific explanation, in p. kitcher & w salmon eds, scientific explanation, minenesota studies in the philoophy of science 13, minneapolis: univ of minesota press,m 1989, 241-261.

I hacking, do we see through a microscope? pacifi philosophy quarterly, 62,4, october 1981, p29-43
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 21:42:36
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486812
I don't see how whether we have a perfect sphere or not matters. Science is in part prediction. We are predicting what would happen if we had such a sphere.

Science is concerned with the real world. A perfect sphere requires a continuum, which does not exist.

So you are saying if a perfect sphere existed the gravity would not be zero?


We don't know what the gravity would be in such a sphere, since it is impossible in the world we live in. We could imagine a world where solids were continua, and materials obeyed Newton's Laws of gravity. In such a world the gravity inside the sphere would be zero.

If the gravity would be zero, that part of science is correct. It is science not just maths (though we USE maths to work out the answer). I cannot see how you could dismiss this as not science?

It's not science because it doesn't relate to a real thing, only imaginary things.

Then given any pertubation from perfect sphere we can say the gravity would not be zero.

That's true, and if it makes you happy, that is an example of a true scientific statement.

Or are you saying the gravity would then be zero?


No, not everywhere anyway.
From: veronica 06/11/2001 21:43:36
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486814
**From what I've read of this thread I get the impression that someone out their is saying, that all we have achieved (good or bad) is from a whole lot of 'lucky guesses'.


I'm afraid you've lost me on that one. I haven't read anything like that. Care to show me a post that says that?**

Please tell me 4D why all of science is wrong and all of history is wrong?. Do not use big words I know nothing about science. Just tell me how you and any other person can believe that everything without exception is wrong.

BC seems to have spoken simply about that point. How can all of anything be wrong? He is speaking common sense.
Are you and your friend just trying to confuse everyone ?
my computer works. science made it work did it not? If I want to send something into outer space, i have to use some formula to work out the size of the rocket don't I? Is that not science?

What put the men on the moon? Just keep it simple
From: UNco 06/11/2001 21:48:39
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486815
i dont undertsand what is goin on here

ou are debating a specific case on whether a single scientific theory is correct or not.

this WRONG!!!

the debate is whether "science" as a category, a profession, a thing, a subject, overall, is wrong.
thus, you need to talk about scientific method, logic, rationalism, empiricism etc etc. not specific examples...

its like saying...maths is wrong because Mr. X got a maths problem wrong.

just because someone doing science made a mistake...doesn’t mean science is wrong, it means the single theory is wrong

From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 21:52:11
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486819
Veronica (and anyone else interested),

This has been said many times before, but here it is again.

Science provides an approximation to reality that is close enough for many practical purposes. That doesn't mean it is the truth.

Sometimes near enough is good enough and sometimes it isn't.
From: Pete ® 06/11/2001 21:56:04
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486823
This has also been said many times before.

Science records observations and provides predictions to a specified precision.

Truth (in the current context) is the realm of philosphy, not science.
From: B.C. ® 06/11/2001 21:56:28
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486824

The debate on this thread and others is whether ALL of science/history is wrong. This does not need scientists to decide with scientific jargon. It can be given a common sense, laymans answer which in reality would apply to just about anything......because no matter what, nothing is all wrong. Thanks Veronica, UNco, and Hurler I think, for showing that all you need to answer this question properly is plain ordinary common sense.
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 21:59:01
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486830
Unco

Neither of us on the "wrong" side of this debate (I think there are still only two of us) is claiming that all of science is wrong because individual examples are wrong. Several people on the "not wrong" side have pointed to individual scientific theories which they believe to be correct as proof that not all of science is wrong.

The original contention was that it is wrong because it is impossible for it not to be wrong (not that there is anyting wrong with that). Judging from your last post I'd say you might have some sympathy for that view (if you gave it a chance).

I'd really recommend that anyone interested read at least the start of the first thread. All this stuff really is covered there.
From: Greg L. ® 06/11/2001 21:59:37
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486832
I agree with 4D Specs here. The people who have spent the most time thinking about these philosophical issues relating to science (and yes, there are of utmost importance and must be addressed if we are to trust science as reliable knowledge) have come to the conclusion science isn't absolute truth, and can never be so. Much of it has to do with simple pragmatism-many scientific models have to simplify reality or incorporate simplifying assumptions to be tractable. It is also impossible to conduct an infinite number of observations or experiments to verify a theory. Also, science often incorporates the cultural and philsophical views or prejudices of the people who formulate the theories-Thomas Kuhn's work on 'paradigms' has been important in this respect.

Science also cannot address some of the fundamental questions of ultimate meaning-say, what is the ultimate purpose of life? What is love? How do we create a fair and just society? Does God exist? Such questions are beyond the ultimate ability of science to address, and must be left to metaphysics and religion to work out. However, this is not to say science is useless, wrong or unreliable, as many of its critics propose-it is simply imporant to recognise science, as a human creation, is fallible and has its intrinsic limits, and cannot answer all important questions and issues relating to human existence and the human condition.
From: WesleyCrusher ® 06/11/2001 22:00:19
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486834
I have problems with the assertion that 'All of Science is Wrong' (note capitalisations).

Heat will always flow from a hotter object to an object that has less heat, never in the reverse order. This fits with my general day to day observations. It's a fundamental facet of this Universe.

If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong.
I'm open to this changing, I'm open to this thing being disproved. It's a correct description of a small aspect of the Universe to the best of our abilities at present and to me, that's Right.

:o)
From: UNco 06/11/2001 22:00:21
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486836
Science provides an approximation to reality that is close enough for many practical purposes. That doesn't mean it is the truth.


unfortunately this statment contains a wrong premise. to say "That doesn't mean it is the truth" assumes that objectional "truth" exists.
this is another question.

if u are going to assume it exists, then yes, science would be aiming for it. but it doesn’t exist. so no.
From: Pete ® 06/11/2001 22:02:48
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486839
...assumes that objectional "truth" exists.

I have no doubt that objectional truth exists (eg "All science is wrong" is certainly objectional to many, and may be true ;-)
From: UNco 06/11/2001 22:03:17
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486840
greg

"Science also cannot address some of the fundamental questions of ultimate meaning-say, what is the ultimate purpose of life? What is love? How do we create a fair and just society? Does God exist? "

science can address these - god does not exist, the purpose of live is evolution, love is seretonin.

fair and just society is non-sci, rather politics.

...??science has done many things...
From: WesleyCrusher ® 06/11/2001 22:03:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486842
4D Specs, I appreciated your last post in this thread.

From what you said, Is this all an arguement over semantics? It didn't appear to be at the outset but there you go...

:o)
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:05:02
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486844

Science is concerned with the real world.

Says who? Science is often about the real world, but in understanding the real world thinking about purely theoretical matters may often help. There are many branches of science that are purely theoretical.

That's true, and if it makes you happy, that is an example of a true scientific statement.

So some science is correct?

the thing is some science is perfectly correct.

I know that I can put a small plastic container (like those little soy sauce fish shaped packets) nearly full of water but with a little air - inside a full plastic bottle of water. Squeeze the bottle I know the fish will sink, let it go the fish will float.

Is this not science?

Is it not correct?

I also know when I get in a full bath the water overflows.

Is this science (somebody got quite exicted about it once)?

Are you saying the water doesn't overflow?

Some science is correct.

MS
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 22:05:33
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486845
I agree with 4D Specs here.

*picks self up of floor and continues reading :)*

The people who have spent the most time thinking about these philosophical issues relating to science (and yes, there are of utmost importance and must be addressed if we are to trust science as reliable knowledge) have come to the conclusion science isn't absolute truth, and can never be so. Much of it has to do with simple pragmatism-many scientific models have to simplify reality or incorporate simplifying assumptions to be tractable. It is also impossible to conduct an infinite number of observations or experiments to verify a theory. Also, science often incorporates the cultural and philsophical views or prejudices of the people who formulate the theories-Thomas Kuhn's work on 'paradigms' has been important in this respect.

Nicely put Greg.

From: UNco 06/11/2001 22:07:50
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486848
pete...your last post makes no sense

"I have no doubt that objectional truth exists (eg "All science is wrong" is certainly objectional to many, and may be true ;-)"

errmm.... "objectional...to many" then its not objectional...its subjective.

also, that is semantics.

science revoloves around synthetic information.
not analytic(such as maths)

or did i mix that up?
well, there are 2 categorises, science and maths. science is reducable to induction, maths deduction.
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 22:08:59
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486851
Unco

If truth exists I don't think it would be objectionable (maybe you meant objective).

The existance of objective truth is another debate. I think it exists.

If (for the purposes of debate) we assume it does, can we add you to the "wrong" camp?
From: Drues ® 06/11/2001 22:09:56
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486853
Can I add something?

Let's not confuse the fragility of science with non-truth.

Just because ALL of science can be debunked by one fundamental change in theory doesn't mean that the foundations of what we have isn't correct.
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 22:14:43
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486860
Martin Smith

If I observe the stars very carefully with my astrolabe I observe that they stay in EXACTLY the same position relative to each other (other than the few exceptions, which I shall call "planets"). The only way I can explain this is to assume that the stars rotate around the Earth, which must therefore be the centre of the Universe. The theory gives me a perfect prediction of the motion of the stars.

Is this an example of a scientific truth?
From: UNco 06/11/2001 22:14:58
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486861
sorry..4D i didnt quite understand ur last post

"The existance of objective truth is another debate. I think it exists." --did i say this? im lost... (and i cant be bothered checkin...in the middle of doin an essay... =o)


If (for the purposes of debate) we assume it does, can we add you to the "wrong" camp?


ummm....but science dosent...
science does not claim to, and has never claimed, to be seeking the absolute truth.
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:18:06
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486866

I think what Greg has said is basically what most people have said. That is still vastly different from the conjecture All of Science is Wrong.

Much of science is an approximation, some if science is incorrect, some is true.

However I would argue an approximation is not wrong, and can often be true.

Pi= 3.14 plus or minus 0.5

This is an approximation - predicate logic also says it evaluates to truth.

I know Paul says the whole Pi thing is just an analogy - well so is this.

Is an approximation given the error limits wrong? The statement is logically true.

MS
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 22:19:04
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486867
"The existance of objective truth is another debate. I think it exists." --did i say this?

No I said that, you said you did not believe in objective truth (or something like that).

science does not claim to, and has never claimed, to be seeking the absolute truth.

What is it seeking then (and why haven't we stopped yet, surely we are near enough now?)

From: UNco 06/11/2001 22:21:26
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486869
people...science is not maths

maths is not science

they are based on fundamentally different foundations.

maths can be reduced to the principles of logic.

how do you know 1 + 1 = 2 ???????????????????
go read...principia mathematica (by..bertrand russel?? or newton?? i forgot)
it has that big long working...from memory page 360 has the conclusion (therefore 1 + 1 = 2).

sthus, the Pi analogy is invalid ... . . ..
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:25:17
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486870

re the stars

umm no because they do not. Look for long enough and they move.

Paralax is well known (even to the ancients). Knowing the resolution of your telescope you can in fact work out how far away the stars must be to look like they are not moving. This is science (and it is true the stars are far away and moving)

That is an example of a scientific truth.

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:28:33
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486877

Unco Paul brought up the Pi analogy in the very first post.

I would also argue Pi is a part of science rather than just maths.

However the analogy I was trying to make was that an approximation can logically evaluate to truth. So the assertion that because much of science is just an approximation means all of sceince is wrong is an incorrect assertion.

MS
From: boxhead ® 06/11/2001 22:33:23
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486882
MS,

Paralax is well known (even to the ancients). Knowing the resolution of your telescope you can in fact work out how far away the stars must be to look like they are not moving. This is science (and it is true the stars are far away and moving)

That is an example of a scientific truth

Surely the implications of these observations are theories not truths? Or do you *know* the distance that you are estimating?

sheepman

From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:33:26
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486883

The knee jerk response is quite valid.

Some parts of science are correct - no doubt about it. The statement is false.

I see no reason why a scientist, who know full well the approximations of many theories, would need a non sensical statement on his wall. Personally I always prefered a nice Escher print.

MS
From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 22:35:08
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486887
Martin Smith

No you can't see parallax effects with the naked eye for stars. The idea that the Earth is the centre of the Universe is an example of a scientific idea that can be justified by careful measurement (the best available at the time), but which is in fact wrong (even though the results of the theory are almost right).

All of science is like that.
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:36:52
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486891

boxy

I know they are not close and not stationary - that was the question.

The exact distance. I can tell you, and I can tell you the limits of the accuracy.

Thus, I am arguing, approximations are not incorrect.

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:40:51
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486898

4D

you can see the stars move if you wait a really long time (lifetimes), with the naked eye.

the thing is even the ancients knew the stars were not close. The theories of them moving are very very old. Historical data backed this theory up (that is if history is correct - maybe it isn't).

So a different theory had to be though of. The correct one.

The stars are a long way away and they are moving.

This is a scientific fact - come about by scientific method - it still contains approximations (I can't give you the distance to the nearest atom width) - but we know the limits of the approximations.

I would say the statement "the stars are a long way away and moving" is a scientific fact. A fact discovered by people using the naked eye.

MS
From: boxhead ® 06/11/2001 22:42:40
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486903
Hi 4D Specs,

MS said : I know they are not close and not stationary

Close may be subjective, but what about stationary? Isn't it true that the stars aren't stationary?

And doesn't science tell us this truth?

sheepman

From: 4D Specs ® 06/11/2001 22:43:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486905
I see no reason why a scientist, who know full well the approximations of many theories, would need a non sensical statement on his wall.

We need it on the wall because although we might know about approximations in a theoretical sense we don't really believe it. We think what we are doing is different to the ancient astronomers and their observations of stars, and their central Earth and epicycles. But it isn't, it's just like that.


Personally I always prefered a nice Escher print.
As long as it is labelled "Truth, as seen by science"

From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:44:07
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486907

So 4D you have showed how a scientific theory may be wrong (the earth is not the centre of the universe).

Does this mean all of science is wrong.

No.

I have showed you many facts of science. Including the fact the the earth is not the centre of the universe, the idea of the artesian diver, the stars being a really long way away, displacement of water.

All are correct and always will be.

Does this mean "All of Science is Wrong" is a false statement.

Yes IMO it does.

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:49:37
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486921

we don't really believe it. We think what we are doing is different to the ancient astronomers and their observations of stars, and their central Earth and epicycles.

What do you mean 'we' white man?

I believe it. So does everyone I have every worked with in the scientific field. It seems more of an outsider view of science (to me anyway).

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:51:06
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486927

In any case 4D, you keep avoiding the fact that there are truths in science (as exampled above).

These truths surely negate the original statement of this thread?

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:53:37
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486934

boxy

my point has been fairly constant. A point not addressed specifically yet. All the other things have been in answer to side issues put forward by 4D. I actually would like an response to the "some science is correct" assertion I have made.

Does a full bath overflow when I get in?

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 06/11/2001 22:56:21
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 486938


Actually the earth being the centre of the solar system, though having some scientific backing at the time, was actually a fairly short lived assertion. An assertion that lived as long as it did due to religious beliefs. It was pre dated and post dated by the sun centred solar system.

Science was again showing the way to the truth.

MS
From: Greg L. ® 07/11/2001 0:14:59
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487041


science can address these - god does not exist,

Science cannot show that God (or Gods) do or do not exist. This has been addressed quite thoroughly elsewhere (see the Not-FAQ under philosophy and religion). Although theists and atheists will often try to use science to support their arguments, science is silent on the matter-the assertion 'God does/does not exist' is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific statement-thus science has nothing useful really to say on the matter on its own.

the purpose of live is evolution,

This is a fallacious statement-you are confusing what is with what ought to be. Evolution is a scientific fact, I agree, but philosophically no useful system of morality and ethics can be entirely based on evolution alone-morality and ethics must draw their principal arguments from philosophy and (sometimes) religion, not natural science.

love is
seretonin.

Neither the emotions, the human mind, human conciousness or a number of other aspects of the mind can be successfully explained entirely in materialistic terms. Whilst material processes certainly play an important role, they are not the whole picture-the human mind seems to be much more subtle, complex and an emergent, rather than intrinsic, property arising from the complexity of the brain.

From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 8:08:39
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487122

>> Actually the earth being the centre of the solar system...

Nice try at misrepresentation, but what was said was something else.


>> ...though having some scientific backing at the time...

Although your're right that Science embraced that theory too.


>> ...was actually a fairly short lived assertion.

Longer than QM and GR.


>> An assertion that lived as long as it did due to religious beliefs.

The idea that what we see around us (the Earth) is the centre of the
universe is probably a half a million years old. Probably the most
'succesful' comsology that will ever exist. Zip to do with religion.


>> Science was again showing the way to the truth.

And it would be moronic to think that what we think now is any less
subject to error. In other words, what we know now, is almost certainly
wrong.
From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 8:13:13
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487124

>> These truths surely negate the original statement of this thread?

*Rolls eyes* I can't keep up with your energetic repetition.

We know nothing. If some of us even knew that we knew nothing,
that would be something, But you don't.
From: veronica 07/11/2001 8:21:44
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487127
The debate on this thread and others is whether ALL of science/history is wrong. This does not need scientists to decide with scientific jargon. It can be given a common sense, laymans answer which in reality would apply to just about anything......because no matter what, nothing is all wrong. Thanks Veronica, UNco, and Hurler I think, for showing that all you need to answer this question properly is plain ordinary common sense.**


**From: Chris (Avatar) 04/11/2001 12:54:43

Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 483815


4D specs wrote:
Now how about the scientific method?

1) Make some observations
2) Make a guess about what's going on
3) Make some predictions based on your guess
4) Make some more observations
5) Did observations agree with predictions?
6) If yes, return to 3)
7) If no, return to 2)

Nice post, 4D. :o)

I agree that science is always searching for better answers. I further agree that this implies we assume some better answer can be found. I don't agree this always makes the previous answer "wrong" - for example, is there not an explicit inclusion of "correctness" in your point 5 above? ie observations agree with predictions: "tick" - correct! :o) Is a modification likely to change those correct predictions? I don't think so... that would be valueless, wouldn't it?

An example:
Some people in this thread like to insist that newtonian gravity is "wrong" because there is now general relativity to describe gravity. Ah - but Newton's gravity correctly predicts that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero. This is a case of theoretical prediction and observation agreeing (ie the science is right). Along comes GR which modifies Newtonian gravity. Using the schwarzschild metric and something called Birkhoff's theorem, we can show that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero, precisely as predicted by Newton's gravity.

So in your table of progressions above, we've gone from making predictions about field strength inside spherical shells and testing those predictions in newton model to new model of gravity - but the correct prediction was incorporated into the new theory. The language which explains the result is different (ie the maths is different) but the result and the reason for the result is still right.

Now, come the future when we have a modified theory of gravity to include quantum gravitation, or supergravity or string theory or whatever, and that theory will still include the result that the gravitational field strength inside a uniform spherical shell is zero.

Why?

Because that bit of science is right. Now, and forever.**

With thanks to BC and Chris......




From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 8:30:29
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487136

No, 'Veronica",
The first post you list doesn't say anything except, "let's all huddle together
and shout 'it isn't so!' in chorus until he goes away."

The second post has been replied to half a dozen times previously. So
basically, my explanations (with don't say anything that wasn't already
said in the very first post of these threads, BTW), have either been not
understood, or willfully ignored. Smartly avoided, you may say.

But thanks for the repetition!


Let me repeat something else:

Finally there is this possibility: after I tell you something you just
can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen
comes down and you won't listen anymore.

- Feynman



From: 4D Specs ® 07/11/2001 10:03:04
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487207
I sometimes wonder what it is about what I write that makes it instantly forgetable. From last night:

I see no reason why a scientist, who know full well the approximations of many theories, would need a non sensical statement on his wall.

We need it on the wall because although we might know about approximations in a theoretical sense we don't really believe it. We think what we are doing is different to the ancient astronomers and their observations of stars, and their central Earth and epicycles. But it isn't, it's just like that.



From today:
I would suggest that you report back to your teacher/professor and tell him that after weeks of persistant posts you have not gained any converts to your extremist views of nature and the universe.

For future refererence here is the spelt out version of why all science is wrong even though some scientific statements are right.

All of the examples of science being "right" have the following features:

1. They are based on observations that are either generalised (such as masses attract each other) or approximate (such as a floating body displaces it's own weight of water; our measurements of both weight and volume are not exact, and never will be)

2. The theory that explains the observations is based on a simplification of the reality. For instance all of Newtonian mechanics is based on the concept of solid (or liquid) objects being continuous.

3. The "true" theories rely on more fundamental theories that are still in a state of flux (such as Quantum Mechanics).

So although all of science that has reached "theory" status is right from an engineering perspective (that is it is a reasonable approximation to observations at some scale), it is all wrong from a scientific perspective (that is it would not agree with observations if we could make them accurate enough)


Have to go and work now, I'll probably call back tonight or tomorrow.
From: B.C. ® 07/11/2001 10:13:07
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487213
For future refererence here is the spelt out version of why all science is wrong even though some scientific statements are right.



Is that a contradictory statement in the extreme or what!!

From: 4D Specs ® 07/11/2001 10:17:54
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487219
BC,
See post 487207
Why science is wrong (even when it is right)
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 07/11/2001 10:50:30
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487235

re why it is wrong when it is right.

Why it is right when it is right

1)Approximations are not wrong. Statements with approximations in them, if the limits are known, evaluate to a predicate truth.

2)It doesn't matter what physics I use- I know when I get in a full bath it overflows. All physics will have this. It DOES NOT depend on a Newtonian continium. It will happene today, tomorrow, and ever after.

It does not depend upon the brand of physics we know and use. ALL physics will have this, and it is always correct.

3) I have no idea what a true theory is. A theory by definition is in a state of flux. However science is a lot more than just theories, it is also observation and prediction (plus other things).

You seem to say because we don't know why it must be wrong. Knowing it will happen is also a part of science.

I know the artesian diver will sink when squeezed.
I know two bodies attract
I know a full bath overflows when I get in.
I know the stars are along way away and moving.
I know the earth is not the centre of the solar system.

All of these are correct, are a part of science, will be a part of any physical system we care to think of. They are the bits that are right (there are plenty more).

So basically how can ALL of science be wrong, when much of it is fully correct?

The statements are incompatible.

Basically that is all I have to say on the matter until you can show me a logical truth that says
"Some of science is correct" = "ALL of science is wrong"

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 07/11/2001 10:57:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487244

4D

just re my comment "all I have to say"

I don't mean that nastily - just the argument is no going around in circles.

re it is wrong and right at the same time because the theories don't always explain exactly why

re it is right because those bits will always be right in any theory.

MS
From: Kothos ® 07/11/2001 10:58:02
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487246

Thanks 4d Specs.

So, the whole point of reminding everyone that all science is wrong is to promote awareness that there's a strong tendency for scientists to become entrenched in dogma?

But if you phrased it that way, as I just did, all scientists would agree! What's with the provactive phrasing? It leads to much semantic argument, which is irrelevant.

I disagree with the proposed fact that wrong and right refer necessarily to binary states. That's an extreme, narrow and less useful interpretation of their definitions than that which is generally held by people. But this is irrelevant - if the prupose of the statement is to warn against the tendency for dogma, why not say so directly?

Plus, different scientists have different tendencies toward dogma. Science itself is dyanmic - how meaningful is it to say "All of Science, is Wrong" in the context of a warning?
From: Martin B 07/11/2001 11:00:49
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487249
Well I don't think this argument is going anywhere. (Is anyone surprised?)

I think it comes down to this:
In the first post in these threads, Science was defined as the search for
objective Truth.

This definition was disputed immediately (a point which has been ignored.) The justification for the above claim (IIRC) was "if science isn't the search for objective truth then what is it?"

Well, I gave a definition that I thought was better which of course was widely ignored (except by woman in the quotes thread :-) ).

I would suggest that the essence of science is developing models that describe mutually agreed observations. The difference between describing reality and knowing reality is crucial.

Other posters, like Chris have also disputed the above definition, but I'll leave that to them (wouldn't want to be accused of appealing to authority) :-)

To repeat myself: I think scientists are well aware that all their results are necessarily imprecise and subject to revision. That is not a new, or a particularly interesting insight.

What is interesting to me is how science deals methodologically with this - how agreement is reached on some things while disputes go on about others. The result is a strong network of 'facts' and 'fact-making' grounded on a bedrock of concensus at some level.

There are some agreed things which are not going to change no matter how much their formal interpretation may shift.

(I think there are also interpretative principles that I think will never change eg "There is no preferred reference frame for the Universe; physics can be described equivalently in any frame; although the form of equations may be simpler in some frames than in others" is with us forever I would say, but that is by-the-by.)

To simply divide the conceptual Universe into True (the unknowable) and False (every kind of human knowledge that ever has or will exist) has the implication that every thing is equally false. (Yes I know that this is not what Paul is arguing, but its an implication that I think a lot of people have been picking up implicitly.) To do this is to ignore much that is characteristic about science, and hence has the tendency to obscure understanding rather than enhance it.
From: Kothos ® 07/11/2001 11:06:45
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487256

Hey here's a point, you can argue against the premise wven with a definition of science as "the search for objective truth".

If science is the search for objective truth, science cannot be wrong. How can a search be wrong? Only scientific results can be wrong.

And again we come to the semantics of the definition, is right/wrong binary or gradual? Come on, it's gradual - everyone has used the expressions, "more wrong" and "more right"!
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 07/11/2001 11:07:31
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487257


re scientists and dogma.

If scientists are really stuck in a rut thinking all science is right

why are all those guys straining to come up with grand new theories of cosmology, relativity, evolution etc etc. Every research scientists is doing what she/he is doing because they know we don't know everything.

Being stuck in dogma leads earth centred solar system debacle. Something science pulled the world out of.

I had better go tell the guys doing super string theory that they are entrenched in dogma (and the guys doing genetic manipulation, and the guys studying black holes etc etc).

So even trying to argue this debate is good because it will stop this dogma is absolutley ridiculous. That feeling doesn't actually exist. Science is about realising not everything we know is correct.

I seriously doubt there is a single scientist in the entire world that would say Einstein got relativity all right and we needed bother to keep looking for more answers.

MS
From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 07/11/2001 11:10:42
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487264


Martin B just said what I was trying to say, but much better

I think scientists are well aware that all their results are necessarily imprecise and subject to revision. That is not a new, or a particularly interesting insight.
From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 11:12:12
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487266

Martin B.,

This definition was disputed immediately (a point which has been ignored.)

I wish you'd stop claiming I ignore things when I never do. The 'dispute' has
been multiply addressed earlier, and not just by me.


There are some agreed things which are not going to change no matter how much their formal interpretation may shift.

I've said that a few times myself. "Water" will still be water, long after we've
found out that there's no such 'element'. Long after we'd found out that we
were wrong about that. (Oops, but I repeat myself...)


From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 07/11/2001 11:21:06
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487274
I argue that is not labelling

I also argue that in any case labelling is a part of science, and we are talking about ALL of science, not just the bits you want to talk about (incomplete theories).

Science is more than theories. Are we talking about ALL of science or not?

In any case you haven't addressed the other points I made yet.

MS


From: Kothos ® 07/11/2001 11:44:11
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487312



What is useful or important about the statement all science is wrong? Does it render scientific conclusions wrong? Does it make science more useful, or render us to suddenly to understand that it is less useful than we thought it was?

Science is useful. It's the most useful thing ever. That's what sets it apart from everything else.
From: WesleyCrusher ® 07/11/2001 11:50:10
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487322
"Water" will still be water, long after we've
found out that there's no such 'element'.

What? What does this mean please? What will happen to water? Will water change somehow, in response to us finding out something fantastic that we've been missing for thousands of years? I'm open to that possibility, I'll listen if you give me the observations and evidence that led you to pronounce that water is no longer water but it is, really.

Water is Hydrogen and Oxygen, locally and in the Andromeda Galaxy. H and O might be made of smaller particles but when they're all stuck together in a particular way, they make a compound that's the same every time.

:o)
From: Martin B 07/11/2001 11:57:09
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487337
Hi Paul

Clearly I am not able to comment on what you think, I can only comment on what you post. And it appears to me that you have not addressed my point.

I gave my first alternate definition for Science in post #428115. You never commented on this, although in post #436588 you made an argument that could be interpreted to mean that the only alternative to a search for absolute truth was relativism. In post #436603 I pointed out that this was in error; again I saw no response to this.

Since then you have restated your position (that science is the search for absolute truth) several times, but the only place that I can see that you have even slightly attempted to justify it is post #456864 where you said:

I disagree. I think most scientists hold exactly my view. The have to - it underpins their whole lives. See the third point in my second post to these threads. It's all been anticipated.

Obviously I disagree with your conclusion. I will merely point out here that
a) the third sentence in the above is begging the question.

b) scientists believing that an absolute reality exists does not prove that they believe that science is a literal serch for that absolute truth.

If you can point me towards any posts, other than these, where you have addressed my objections, or justified your definition then I will be happy to retract my claim.


From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 12:05:59
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487350

"Water" will still be water, long after we've
found out that there's no such 'element'.
What? What does this mean please? I've already explained this twice.


Will water change somehow, in response to us finding out something fantastic that we've been missing for thousands of years?

Our scientific understanding of it will change. It will still be wrong, but it will
change.

From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 12:27:28
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487390


Martin B.,

I gave my first alternate definition for Science in post #428115. You never commented on this...

So what? Ten other people have given the same naive 'definition'. It's not
something that requires an 'answer' from me.


Since then you have restated your position (that science is the search for absolute truth) several times, but the only place that
I can see that you have even slightly attempted to justify it....

Not only have I 'justified' it on several occasions, but so have a couple of other
people.

Let me jog your memory (although I'm regretting it already, for the further repetition it will breed): people like you say that Science 'merely' looks for 'facts' and the explanation of them. So, is there such a thing as an untrue fact?
Does science seek to propose untrue explanations?

Therefore, Science is the search for truth.


...scientists believing that an absolute reality exists does not prove that they believe that science is a literal serch for that
absolute truth.

Yes it does. It can't be anything else.


There's nothing in this post that hasn't been said several times before.


From: Greg L. ® 07/11/2001 12:37:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487412
Perhaps I should clarify what I agreed with in respect to what was being said. I am happy with the assertion science isn't absolute truth-it usually deals with models, theories and approximations that get better (or are rejected) as they are improved with observation. I do not however agree with the assumption science must be 'right' and 'wrong' in a black and white sense, as Paul appears to be arguing. A lot of the stuff we now accept may well be thrown out due to future work, but this is how science works-it doesn't mean we should ridicule the whole enterprise as 'wrong' and throw our hands into the air and give up.

On the issue of Ptolemiac and Aristotlian cosmology-the reasons why the cosmology of these two outstanding scholars was held for so long were numerous. Firstly, the idea of an Earth-centered universe agreed well with 'common sense' as well as the prevailing religious and philosophical prejudices at the time-and most Scholars in the Islamic World and in Middle Age Europe greatly admired Aristotle's work for its amazing breadth and depth-Aristotle was simply such a genius for many centuries it was very hard to improve or add to his monumental works by philosophical or theological reflection alone. The Earth-centered cosmology was also very hard to refute with solid observational evidence because key effects (like aberration) were undetectable until the 18th century. It took a lot of slow and painstaking observational and theoretical work on behalf of people like Galileo, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler to destroy the geocentric cosmology and overcome the strong resistance to the heliocentric models existing in the Catholic clergy and Aristotlian academic establishment.

The 'Copernican revolution' is better thought of as a massive 'paradigm shift' akin to the theory of evolution because it resulted in a monumental change in thinking across virtually every field of human endevour, from theology to astronomy to philosophy and beyond. There will probably be similar 'paradigm shifts' in the future, but only when a mountain of observational or experimental evidence exists to overthrow the preexisting paradigm. Only when this occurs can we really be qualified to say our present ideas were deeply flawed and in error, and not before, as some seem to have argued here.
From: Martin B 07/11/2001 12:42:36
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487418
So what? Ten other people have given the same naive 'definition'. It's not something that requires an 'answer' from me.

We could easily trade the term "naive" here.

And if you wish to have a credible argument, then yes, you do need to answer criticisms. If you don't care, then do what you want.

Not only have I 'justified' it on several occasions, but so have a couple of other people.

Then you will have no difficulty in giving me post numbers. I'm not asking you to repeat anything, just show me where.

Let me jog your memory (although I'm regretting it already, for the further repetition it will breed): people like you say that Science 'merely' looks for 'facts' and the explanation of them.

Incorrect. Demonstrating that you have not bothered to read my definitions of science.

For the third time: Science looks for descriptions for agreed observations. If the whole world was collectively and consistently deluded, science could continue quite happily despite the lack of objective truth of the "facts" established by science.

So, is there such a thing as an untrue fact? Does science seek to propose untrue explanations?

As science is not concerend with objectively true facts this is irrelevant. Descriptions are neither "true" nor "false" as they do not purport to be reality.

Therefore, Science is the search for truth.

No such conclusion has been demonstrated.


...scientists believing that an absolute reality exists does not prove that they believe that science is a literal serch for that absolute truth.

Yes it does. It can't be anything else.

I have now three times shown you that it can. If you don't believe me, I could point you to any number of introductory books on the subject which will also demonstrate such alternate possibilities. But if your imagination is too limited to concieve of these alternate possibilities, then it may not be of any use.



From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 12:43:03
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487420

A lot of the stuff we now accept may well be thrown out due to future work, but this is how science works-it doesn't mean we should ridicule the whole enterprise as 'wrong' and throw our hands into the air and give up.

Who suggested this? What ridicule? Didn't you read my first post? Read what's
actually said. (I've said this before too).



Only when this occurs can we really be qualified to say
our present ideas were deeply flawed and in error, and not before, as some seem to have argued here.

No, the very same inductive logic that Science is based on, gives us every
reason to suspect that, not only will the sun come up in the morning (because
it always has before), but that all of what we think we know now - will be as
wrong as Ptolemy, Newton and Einstein.

(But, I repeat myself).

From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 12:53:16
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487437


you do need to answer criticisms.

It wasn't a criticism. Regardless, I've explained why that 'definition' is wrong
several times.


Then you will have no difficulty in giving me post numbers. I'm not asking you to repeat anything, just show me where.

Finding the post numbers would take longer than repeating them. And I can't
be bothered even repeating them (again).


For the third time: Science looks for descriptions... (i.e., explanations) ...for agreed observations. (i.e. 'facts')

So, not incorrect at all.


If the whole world was collectively and consistently
deluded, science could continue quite happily despite the lack of objective truth of the "facts" established by science.

And it's goal would *still be* the search for truth.

From: Greg L. ® 07/11/2001 12:59:27
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487453


Where did you get that idea Greg?



I've seen Paul go out of his way many times (although not so much in this thread) to argue against mainstream science for various reasons. Whilst people in this thread certainly haven't ridiculed science, their black and white expectations of science communicate exactly the kind of nonsense that is often taken up by cranks, crackpots and pseudoscientists to defend their ideas-since science is 'wrong' (and therefore must not really be taken seriously, or as any better than their own ideas) their own half-baked codswallop must be considered on equal terms with science. I've seen this happen with YE creationism, astrology, Velikovskian-style catastrophism, and so on. Likewise, the notion that science must be 'right' and 'wrong' in an absolute sense implies we must either take science to be definitive, perfect and absolute knowledge (and thus having the final say on all matters and questions of importance)-which IMO is a grossly arrogant overextension of science way beyond the proper domains of its main area of useful applicability (physical reality) or we must take it as absolutely wrong-which means we must throw out the entire corpus of knowledge as worthless and start again.

I'm certainly not going to throw away all of the precise astronomy and cosmology theories I know which are in beautiful agreement with observation because according to someone's unrealistic expectations they must be 'wrong'-nor will I tell newcomers who wander in with a question related to cosmology or astronomy we 'have no answers 'because it is 'wrong/' To make science tractable, we must make some assumptions and take them for granted-such as the intelligibility of the universe, the limited nature of science itself, and its risk of being in error. To me this gives no validity to the idea science must be thought of as either right or wrong in an absolute sense, nor the final arbiter on all matters of 'truth.'
From: Martin B 07/11/2001 12:59:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487455
all of what we think we know now - will be as wrong as Ptolemy, Newton and Einstein.

Ah, but Ptolemy, Newton and Einstein were all wrong in very different ways. Understanding the difference in the ways they were wrong is quite instructive.

[As pointed out in another thread] Ptolemy was wrong, because his model never explained well all of the available observations. For this reason, a successor theory to Ptolemy was not required to recapitulate its results.

Newton was wrong for a different reason. Newton's theory explained (within experimental error) all available observations when it was formulated. However, eventually new observations were shown to be incompatible. A successor theory was required to recapitulate the previous results of Newton, but to explain the divergences - which of course is what happened. Newton was shown to be the limiting case of a more general theory.

Einstein is wrong for a similar, but slightly different reason. Einstein agrees well with all known observations. However the conceptual framework of Einstein does not appear to be applicable at all scales. Again, a successor theory is required to recapitulate the results of Einstein on a cosmic scale, but (perhaps) provide) new conseptual frameworks at smaller scales.

Saying "as wrong as Ptolemy, Newton and Einstein" as if they are all the same is obfuscatory rather than enlightening. But I repeat myself.
From: Greg L. ® 07/11/2001 13:20:11
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487498


Whaddya mean "regimes"? There's only one regime - the objective
universe. Science is wrong. Never mind about trying to pretend this isn't so by
artificially dividing it up into "regimes"!

Yes, there is the physical universe, but that universe is divided up into many different and inter-related parts in which some scientific theories work and others do not. Perhaps 'regime' should be reconsidered as meaning 'domain of applicability'-for instance, NM works perfectly in most cases in the 'domain of applicability' in our solar system (except near the Sun, but even then NM still provides an excellent description of gravity adequate for most purposes)-but NM doesn't work near a BH. Only another more comprehensive theory, containing NM within it, works-and that is GR. Would you make the ludicrous assertion we must use evolutionary biology to describe what spacetime is like near a BH? Or use GR to describe the evolution of organisms with time? Of course not. It is preposterous to assume science must as a whole describe reality perfectly on all scales in a single, monlithic theory-it simply cannot do this-thus the need to 'compartmentalise' reality into different chunks.



You're the one talking nonsense. Where did you the get idea that anyone has
said, "science is just a construct not useful for describing 'objective' reality"?
Well?

Critics of science often claim science is not adequate at all for describing 'objective' reality because it can never arrive at the 'truth--you seem to be arguing science must be 'wrong' because it doesn't describe reality with absolute precision. I think this argument is specious. What exactly makes it any more absurd than your expectation science must be absolutely right or wrong?




I don't know why it suits you to insist this. Science is just as well suited to these
questions as any other.

I can tell you quite clearly, after studying theology and philosophy in a bit of depth (in my own spare time mostly) science is very poorly equipped to deal with questions of theology and metaphysics. For instance, science never provided a good explanation as to why the world is intelligible and tractable to our senses and various modes of investigation-why 'something' exists rather than 'nothing'-whether God ultimately does or doesn't exist, and so on. Like I've said elsewhere, atheists and theists will use science (along with other methods) to support their view, but ultimately, science itself is quiet on these issues, because it cannot deal with objects or entities that cannot be detected by experiments or observations (like the immanent and transcendant God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity) or questions that cannot be resolved by observation or experiment (say the ultimate purpose of our existence or producing a fair society). Science certainly can be used to argue for or against a certain viewpoint, but it is important to recognise the argument or assertion being argued for is not scientific-say the use of cosmology to support or refute the idea of a immanent, transendant creator acting in the universe. This is the distinction that needs to be very carefully made, because not doing so leads (and has led to) all sorts of unscientific nonsense being dressed up and put forward as science, when it is not.



There is nothing *outside* the natural world. Therefore Science applies equally
to everything. It's a false discontinuity to imagine otherwise.

This is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. How can you use science to ever show the material world is 'all that is?' I've yet to see a convincing philosophical scheme that reduces everything to the material world, even though some people who do it (like Hume, Dawkins, and so on) are very bright and persuasive.


From: Martin B 07/11/2001 13:24:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487514
For the third time: Science looks for descriptions... (i.e., explanations) ...for agreed observations. ... (i.e. 'facts')

So, not incorrect at all.

That is ridiculous.

The only way that I can see that you can equate "mutually agreed observations" with "objectively true facts" is if you say that things are true because people think they are true.

This is a turnaround from just about everything you have argued previously, but if that is what you are now saying, I will have to reconsider my argument :-)



From: Paul H ® 07/11/2001 13:46:09
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487584

Here Greg, here's some genuine unprovoked personal comment from me to
you (with a smile):

You know how they joke that Italians can't talk if you tie their hands behind
their back? Well, I reckon you wouldn't write, if you weren't allowed to use the
terms "crank" "crackpot", "pseudo-scientist".

I bet you have a few macros set up thus:

F1 = half-baked codswallop
F2 = cranks, crackpots and pseudo-scientists


but that universe is divided up into many different and inter-related parts in which some scientific theories work and others do not.

No, the universe is certainly not 'divided up'. *We* do that, for our convenience.


Would you make the ludicrous assertion
we must use evolutionary biology to describe what spacetime is like near a BH?

Any theory of space/time that explains BHs must also apply to evolutionary
biology. It's all one domain.



Of course not. It is preposterous to assume science must as a whole describe reality perfectly on all scales in a single, monlithic theory...

I don't see why it's preposterous at all.

F3 = ludicrous
F4 = preposterous


Critics of science often claim science is not adequate at all for describing 'objective' reality because it can never arrive at the
'truth -

You shouldn't chose to see stating the bleedin' obvious as "criticism".


...science is
very poorly equipped to deal with questions of theology and metaphysics.

We'll just have to disagree on that. (Could make a good thread of it's own,
though). I think there's nothing that Science can't be applied to.


F5 = nonsense being dressed up


This is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one.

Actually, it's a meta-scientific one. (And I don't see any distinction between
Science and Philosophy anyway).


How can you use science to ever show the material world is 'all that is?'

How can religion show it isn't? Anyway, Science never really 'shows' anything at
all. Just presents us with probabilities. And that's why it will always be wrong.


(Yeah, my F1 = "always wrong")

;-)

From: CJW 07/11/2001 13:49:55
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 487597
They were wrong, even though their science 'worked'. So are we, even though ours does.

I'm glad you put "worked" in quotes. Do you suspect that their "science" actually wasn't a science and predated anything which you would call "science", and in fact, didn't "work".

Perhaps their science said that water was a wet element and could put out fire because it was at the opposite end of the element triangle. Does that count as "working"? I don't know.

Let me try!!! Dirt is a browny stuff and anything browny shouldn't be eaten. Hey presto, we have a science. Science is easy, anyone can play.

Does science seek to propose untrue explanations? Therefore, Science is the search for truth.

Like I said, anyone, no matter how stupid, can make simple inferences and come to faulty conclusions.

From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 09/11/2001 9:56:53
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 490019

One of the biggest problems with the statement "all of science is wrong" hinges on the ALL.

For two reasons.

Firstly some science is absolutely correct and always will be (Pi is something we know the exact expression for, we know a full bath overflows when you get in etc etc). Even if we cannot explain why to the infinite degree of precision..

Secondly, science is A LOT more than just theories (which by definition must be incomplete). The whole premise seems to rely on the fact that we don't (and most likely never will) have an exact description of universal physics.

However science is more than explaning why.

Science is also about categorising (that thing is water, that thing is oxygen - the periodic table is one very big and extremely useful label chart).

Science is about observation. When I get in the bath the water goes up.

Science is about prediction. If the bath is full it will overflow when I get in.

These things are all a part of science. Many of these things contain absolute truths. Science is a lot more than theories of why (don't get me wrong, theories of why are also a big part of science).

The final part of the problem lies in the justification for the statement. That it might somehow pull scientists out of some egoistic lethargy. This lethargy simply does not exist. Saying All theories are incomplete (which is what has been argued by Paul) is stating the bleeding obvious, and not particularly insightful.

MS
From: Paul H ® 09/11/2001 10:11:22
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 490047


Firstly some science is absolutely correct and always will be (Pi is something we know the exact expression for...

No, we don't. This has been replied to about twenty times (literally) previous.
Labeling a cow, "cow" does not mean your understanding of cow is True. This
has been dealt with in detail previously. Why the repetition?


...we know a full bath overflows when you get in etc etc).

No, you just *think* that. Just like until very very recently we knew that 'gravity'
attracts massive objects toward each other. Well, that does not now seem to
always be the case. I mean no matter how pig-sure you think you are about
something, you're probably still wrong.

But all this has been said before.


Even if we cannot explain why to the infinite degree of precision..

I.e., we will always be wrong. (As said before, why the repittion?).


Science is also about categorising (that thing is water...

This has been replied to before, quite recently. Our categories always a turn out
to be wrong.


Science is about observation.

Our observations always turn out to be wrong, (See the gravity example above).


Science is about prediction. Always wrong.

Many of these things contain absolute truths. Oh bull. Leaving
aside the "label" fallacy, we don't even have theoretical access to the absolute
truth, nor is it likely we ever will. But all this has been said before.


That it might somehow pull scientists out of some egoistic lethargy. This lethargy simply does not exist.

The history of science does not support your assertion. But, I've been through
this before.


Saying All theories are incomplete (which is what has been argued... is stating the bleeding obvious, and not particularly insightful.

Any moron can see that all Science is wrong?


Please stop wasting my time with repition.


From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 09/11/2001 10:28:06
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 490073

Paul,

Saying you are wrong and I am right is not an argument (yes it it, not it isn't, yes it is. Look stop it I cam here for a good argument).

Re the Pi thing.

Paul do you know the expression for Pi? I do. It is not a label. It is an expression, a very different thing. Just because you do not understand the difference between a label and an expression does not mean Pi is just a label.

Water will always be water. The periodic table is a superb label. It will always be right. the full bath will always oveflow when you get into it. These are absolute truths.

However you missed the point. The point being because science is in a large part categorisation, prediction, labelling, things which may or maynot be able to be equated to right or wrong the statement ALL of science is wrong simply does not make sense.

Just giving some examples of how theories have changed is not a conclusive argument.

Re the lethargy of science.
History is not on my side? HUH?

The rate of expansion of knowledge is simply phenominal. The shear number of people working on new theories of physics is larger than it has ever been before.

There is also a huge number of people expanding the products of science (the label and prediction part that engineers, computer scientists etc find so useful but cannot be equated to true or false)

Finally there is one more argument. Of all these observations, the chance that every single one of them is incorrect is non existent. In fact, by the same reasoning as your argument, you CANNOT be sure that all of science is wrong (some of it mught be true by accident).


MS


From: Martin Smith (Avatar) 13/11/2001 15:21:06
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 494179

One final argument.

by the same logic you are using to argue all of science is wrong...

You cannot be sure all of science is wrong. How can you be sure everything being said today is wrong? You would need to know everything to know if everything being said/conjectured is right or wrong. If you do know everything, tell us just one bit of it, then all of science will not be wrong. However if you do not know everything you cannot be absolutely sure everything being said is wrong.

MS
From: Robert ® 17/11/2001 14:52:44
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 500503
While I'm in the mood for writing proofs that will convince no-one.... :)

One of the premises of the initial argument as stated by the main proponent is that of Godel's theorem.

This rests on formal logical systems being applicable to science.

Let's say that they are.

By the Soundness theorem, if |- A then |= A (ie. if there is a proof of A, then A is actually true).

By the assumed premise (formal system iso. with sci), Science is all Right.

Hence, by RAA (reductio ad absurdum) formal systems don't really have a strong relationship with science, and Godel's theorem is an irrelevant premise. Note the validity of the argument may still be there, it depends on the other premises.

Another one of the main premises was argument by induction. However, it should be noted that strong induction really isn't suited to dynamic systems by definition, of which science is one. I really should explain that better, but I feel its pointless, and I have an exam I should be studying for :)

(Note Godel also has a Completeness theorem which came out a year before the first Incompleteness theorem - contradictory? No, not really, you have to look at each theorem)
From: James R (Avatar) 18/11/2001 11:25:30
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 501133
4D Specs:

So although all of science that has reached "theory" status is right from an engineering perspective (that is it is a reasonable approximation to observations at some scale), it is all wrong from a scientific perspective (that is it would not agree with observations if we could make them accurate enough)

Science predicts that heat always flows from a hot object to a cold one when they make contact. That is not an approximation. It is an absolute statement. There is no way to make a more accurate observation of the direction of heat flow. Either it flows from hot to cold, or it flows from cold to hot. Science tells us it flows from hot to cold, and every experiment supports this (and always will). Therefore, this aspect of science is unequivocally right. Therefore the contention of this thread is disproven. QED.

From: Jane M ® 18/11/2001 11:53:14
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 501149
There is no way to make a more accurate observation of the direction of heat flow.

Only assuming that forward linear time is the correct perspective to view it from, yes? The laws of physics would work just as well backwards, this is simply convention by choice.
From: James R (Avatar) 18/11/2001 12:05:20
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 501152
Only assuming that forward linear time is the correct perspective to view it from, yes?

Yes. Feel free to rephrase that as "Heat always flows from a hot body to a cold body as the time coordinate increases." That makes no value judgement as to the "true" direction of time flow, or even any assumption that time flows at all.

The laws of physics would work just as well backwards, this is simply convention by choice.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. There is a concept known as the thermodynamic arrow of time, which always points from past to future. The direction of heat flow helps define the thermodynamic arrow. In thermodynamics, a distinction is often made between reversible and irreversible processes. Irreversible processes help define the thermodynamic direction of time. Heat flow from one macroscopic body to another is an example of an irreversible process. The laws of thermodynamics do NOT work equally in both directions of time in this instance.

JR

From: G-wiz 18/11/2001 12:08:42
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 501153
Time is a human concept yes?
Isn't it therefore correct to state that time always goes/moves/flows forward?
From our perspective there is currently no other option is there?
From: Jane M ® 18/11/2001 12:11:46
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 501155
G-wiz,

That's where our more clever science is taking us, to be able to comprehend that there is more to it than we can ordinarily perceive.
From: B.C. ® 18/11/2001 13:03:05
Subject: re: All of Science, is Wrong. III post id: 501169
Time is a human concept yes?
Isn't it therefore correct to state that time always goes/moves/flows forward?
From our perspective there is currently no other option is there?



From my perspective time is not just a human concept. Time exists as a result of the expansion of space.
Time is what separates events...if we had no time, everything would happen together.
We can go foward in time according to GR, simply by accelerating our FoR with relation to another FoR and returning to whence we came....the same time dilation effect can be achieved by FoR in differnt space/time curvatures, or gravity fields.
The human concept of time exists in the way we measure time.
GR allows for the existence of worm holes and also reverse time travel....the rate at which time flows is also subject to both space/time curvature and speed as outlined.


THE END